NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Case Solved

[Added as of 11-12-13: I noticed lately that comments added to this page seemed to be disappearing lately and I was wondering what was going on. I've now figured it out. Because there are so many comments, they aren't all visible on the main screen. If you go down to the bottom of the page and click on "Load more" you'll be able to see the remaining posts.]

Before proceeding it's important that I ask my readers to temporarily put everything they've ever read or even thought about this case out of their minds. As I see it, it's the case as a whole, as it developed over months and years, that's confusing, while the identity of the murderer was, or should have been, clear from the start. I'm not asking anyone to agree. In fact I'd be surprised if many did, because admittedly my take on this case is very different from that of just about anyone else. But I am asking you to open your minds and make a sincere attempt, at least for now, to see with fresh eyes.

Taking all the facts together, as presented in the previous post, we can safely conclude there was no intruder. Kolar's new book will, as I understand it, present new evidence debunking certain aspects of the so-called "intruder theory," and as much as I welcome the book and look forward to reading it, as I see it there was never any basis whatsoever for such a theory. It should have been clear from day one that no intruder could have been present in that home on the night of the murder.

First, there was no means for an intruder to enter or leave. As reported by John and confirmed by the police, all the outside doors were locked. All the windows were either locked or barred, with one exception, the notorious broken basement window we've read so much about. I have my own ideas about that window and what it might mean, but for now neither my theory nor anyone else's is relevant. As reported by the police, and clearly evident from examining photos taken the morning after the murder (supplemented by the new video released in association with Kolar's book), there is no sign of disturbance anywhere on the window frame or in fact anywhere in the well or even the grate over the well. Clearly no one had entered or left via that window.

Second, there was no sign of an intruder anywhere on the premises. Attempts have been made to identify such signs, but in literally every case they can be, and have been, explained as innocent artifacts already in the home prior to the crime.

Third, there was no sign that anything had either been introduced into the house or taken from it. Literally everything associated with the crime, from the stick used for the "garotte" to the ransom note itself was identified very early on as originating in the Ramsey household.

Fourth, there was no reason for any intruder, either a kidnapper, a child molester, someone "out to get" John or to frame John, etc., etc., to leave a note behind in his own handwriting, providing investigators with evidence that could be used against him. Such a note could easily have been prepared in advance, printed on a typewriter or computer printer, but that isn't what was found. Nor, if this was a "kidnapping gone wrong," as prosecutor Lacy seems to have believed, would a possibly incriminating note have been left on the premises for no reason, since the victim's body was still in the house. Nor would an intruder have wanted, or had any need, to go to the trouble to hide the body in a remote basement room, latching the door as he left.

It seems obvious, therefore, that there could have been no intruder. Which makes it wonderful indeed that the Ramseys were not arrested or at the very least taken into custody for questioning shortly after the body was discovered.

Which leaves us with two possible suspects: Patsy Ramsey or John Ramsey. (Though Burke has many "fans" among followers of this case, one look at the ransom note tells us it was not written by a 9 year old; nor is it likely a child that young and frail could have delivered such a heavy blow to the head; nor is it likely he could have produced the very elegant knot on the so-called "garotte"; nor is it likely his parents would have taken such huge risks to cover for him.)

Now comes the most difficult part, because, thanks to the very strange manner in which the investigation was allowed to proceed, a great many people became fixated on Patsy as writer of the note, to the point that this has become literally an article of faith for probably the great majority of those following the case. Nevertheless, I am convinced, and have been for a very long time, that Patsy could not have written the note. I have many reasons for this conviction, some based on my own analysis of both the handwriting and the content, but for now that is neither here nor there, since I am presently considering only the known facts, not anyone's interpretation of the evidence, including my own.

Once we rule out the possibility of an intruder, then we need to return to the note to understand why it was written. And clearly, since there was no intruder and hence no kidnapping, the note could only have been written by someone inside the house as part of an attempt to stage a phoney kidnapping. While some might consider this an interpretation, I must say I find it impossible to explain the note any other way, so for me staging is clearly a fact and the note was clearly a part of that staging attempt.

In the light of the note and its contents, clearly intended, as I must insist, as staging, the key fact in the case is the fact that Patsy is the one who called the police so early in the morning, while the body was lying the basement waiting to be discovered, not John. This call could not possibly have been made by the person who wrote that note. Calling the police first thing in the morning is exactly what the note says not to do. There is simply no reason why someone would stage a phoney kidnapping, with the clear intention of removing the body from the house prior to calling the police, and then totally blow that staging by calling the police before the body had been removed -- and then handing over an obviously phoney note written in her own hand. Sorry, but that does not compute.

Thus:

Fact: no intruder, telling us this must have been an inside job.

Fact: Patsy Ramsey is the one who called the police, telling us she could have known nothing about the staging clearly implied in the note.

Conclusion: John Ramsey and John Ramsey alone must be the guilty party. Case solved.

377 comments:

Reading your words - just the known facts - makes solving this a no-brainer. Thanks. I am no longer a PDI. When I read this and added in my own feelings about JR and his statements or avoidance of, there is no doubt in my mind. I remember Arndt counting her bullets and also the White riff. It makes perfect sense.

Exactly. If Burke had killed his sister and the parents were covering it up, they would have been working together, both would have been involved in the staging and they would have made sure not to call the police until the body had been removed.

Good question. We'll probably never know. But surely we can guess. Forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht interpreted the coroner's report as evidence of prior sexual molestation. If John had been molesting her and she was threatening to "tell," that would certainly constitute a motive for murder. Father-daughter incest is more common than most people realize and it can happen in the "best" homes.

JR and JBR had a seemingly warm and loving relationship and strictly father-daughter. I can't see him deciding to kill his youngest child on Christmas night with his wife and son in the house. Yes, the note does say not to call the police, but PR says it was JR who told her to call the police. In some ways, your case against JR is persuasive, but I'm not ready to buy it yet. The only person I have in the clear is PR. BR is my first suspect, followed by JR. PR could have never carried through that staging, JR was/is lacking in emotion enough to do so, and if it was BR, I think it was JR who did most of the staging. I do definitely think BR was strong enough to inflict the head injury. He was a skinny kid, but he was healthy and not frail.

Yes, John and JBR had a loving relationship I'm sure, but when attempting to solve a murder we have to look at the evidence rather dispassionately I'm afraid. Father's have molested their daughters and men have in fact killed women they loved when threatened with exposure. If you take another look at my third post, you'll see that initially it was NOT PR but JR who said he was the one who told her to call 911. In the Tracey documentary, Patsy says it was her idea.

You are implying that BR killed JB and JR covered for him, but I'm curious as to why you are ignoring the far more likely possibility that JR killed her and covered his OWN ass.

To DocG -- To cover John's own ass, here is my theory: BR and JBR went snooping for gifts in the basement after snacking on some pineapple (which was found in her stomach, which she would have to have consumed after 9pm when they came home from the White's party).

An accident occurred in the basement during the search, or maybe intentional. BR went to get JR to tell him what happened. Perhaps JR was already up at that time too. JR knows that her body reveals past sexual trauma and they cannot call the cops. So he stages to cover for son, including note and choke knot. He leaves note for PR, to give him time to dump body. PR doesn't read note carefully and calls cops anyway, and his original plan is derailed.

Interesting. But how does that cover John's ass? If John was responsible for the sexual trauma, then he's guilty of, at the very least, child molestation. The real problem with your scenario, however, is that there is more than past sexual trauma. There is also acute trauma, due to a vaginal assault that drew blood. Not to mention ligature strangulation.

Hi DocG, nice theory and blog you have there and I'm certainly going to read all of it, as this case has got me fixed for days, and possibly weeks to come.

I think that BR had something to do with this (he might've accidentally or intentionally killed JBR) and I'm curious as to why you believe that it isn't likely that JR and PR would go all the way to protect him. They had lost a daughter in 1992, then JBR in 1996; if BR had accidentally killed JBR then he would've been indicted and they definitely wouldn't want to lose their only son and remaining child.

Why I think BR did it, is due to the parents' denial of the pineapple feeding. Why deny something seemingly inconsequential? Cos of the incriminating fingerprints; BR's were found on the bowl. That would mean that BR was awake an hour or so, and he was with JBR before her death, and that he wasn't asleep all the while, another fabrication that the parents told the police. And what about Burke's voice on that 911 call?

However, your analysis on the ransom note and PR's early morning call is a very strong piece of logic. The most I can say to rebutt it, is that it was too inconvenient to dispose the body off, as the Ramseys being an elite family have had no experience as skilled criminals cleverly doing such a thing, and it would create more incriminating evidence (body stench, DNA, fibres in vehicle, etc). Plus their movements in and out of the house for the disposal might seem too suspicious in retrospect to anyone who sees them, if they were to know about JBR's death. So the most they could do was stage the kidnapping and note, and then create the illusion that it was an inexperienced kidnapper who had screwed up and had to leave the body in the basement instead, an illusion which was backed by Lou Smit, which (no surprise) was hired by the Ramseys. So this would explain Patsy's seemingly illogical early morning call. But I admit this is only circumstantial of course. In fact your body disposal theory too is circumstantial, based on human logic and common sense (why would anyone do something so illogical), and another circumstantial rebuttal that I have is that criminals have been known to do the illogical and stupid which have led to their capture and conviction. Hopefully you could rebutt me to there.

And about PR's same clothes from the night of the murder till the next morning, this might show her guilt, not as the murderer but as the person covering up. She might not have hit the child as you had mentioned because it would've created bloodstains which in turn created the need to change clothes. Instead it could mean that she knew of JBR's death that night, was too panicky/distraught and just 'carried on' to the next morning, possibly assisting in arranging the cover up, or just slept through, her usual bedtime habits being disrupted because of the untimely death. But yeah, another circumstantial claim.

Do let me know your thoughts on this. I believe that more rebuttals and discussions will ultimately give us the most accurate picture.

Thanks for your interest in my blog, Ruzhi. Please do keep reading, and also commenting, whenever you have a question or an interesting idea.

Yes, it's not uncommon for parents to cover for a child -- but I know of no instance in the history of crime where a parent went to such great lengths to do so, and in the process taking such huge risks. There's a difference between parents providing a child with a fake alibi and parents staging a phoney sexual assault, complete with digital penetration of their daughter's vagina, followed by a vicious "garotte" strangulation and then putting together a 2 1/2 page phoney "ransom" note. This goes beyond protecting their son, it places THEM in danger of being accused of murdering their own daughter. And also, as I emphasized in this post, there's no point in writing such a note to begin with unless you are actually planning to follow through by getting the body out of the house before reporting the "kidnapping" to the police.

As for the pineapple, if Burke and JonBenet had sat down together to have some pineapple before being put to bed, so what? Why would their parents need to deny knowing anything about that? They could easily have incorporated it into their story. On the other hand, if John had awakened JonBenet while Patsy was asleep, and fed her some pineapple before murdering her, there's good reason why he would want to keep that information from both the police AND his wife. As for the prints on the bowl, there is no way of dating fingerprints, thus no way of connecting them with the murder. All the prints mean is that Patsy and Burke handled that bowl at some time prior to the murder, possibly days prior. Maybe Burke was helping Patsy put the dishes away after they'd been washed. And lack of prints also means nothing, since it's possible to handle something without leaving prints.

As for the 911 call, I've never been able to hear anything remotely like either John or Burke's voice on that recording, I think that story is a myth. Even if Burke's voice IS on the recording (which I doubt) all it tells us is that he was present when the call was made -- so what? How does that make him guilty of murder?

If the Ramseys were covering for Burke and decided it was too risky to dispose of the body, then they would not have written a phony "ransom" note in the first place, because the note was obviously written to stage a kidnapping, and if the body is still in the house, there was NO kidnapping -- so why bother? And why take the huge risk of having one's handwriting identified in a patently phoney document that serves no purpose after all.

Sure, criminals don't always behave logically, but this goes way beyond being simply illogical. Writing a phony ransom note to stage a kidnapping makes no sense whatever unless one is actually staging a kidnapping -- and that means getting the body OUT of the house before calling the cops.

As I wrote above, "There is simply no reason why someone would stage a phoney kidnapping, with the clear intention of removing the body from the house prior to calling the police, and then totally blow that staging by calling the police before the body had been removed -- and then handing over an obviously phoney note written in her own hand."

Nice work. This is a very logically satisfying explanation. Crystal clear writing, too.

It seems JR's high standing in the community effected peoples perceptions. Humans are intensely social creatures - experiments have shown this can distort logical thinking. Add JR's status to his near immediate acquisition of expert lawyers and he becomes formidable target.

I'll have to read more about just what happened with the 911 calls - since a lot of this explanation hinges this - and it looks like there's several accounts. From the transcript, it seemed to end abruptly.

I like to keep in mind that the detailed, "real story" is most likely pretty messy. After all, families are highly interconnected systems. It helps to think of the players as distinct agents, although I get the feeling that what unfolded swept the main characters up into something much bigger than they could control.

Oh, do you have any ideas for why the garrote came into play? It just seems weird to use this weird, arcane method that would stick in people's minds (at least I've never heard of it before).

Thanks, William, for your sympathetic response. If you read the following post you'll see that there is something very wrong with the Ramsey's official version of what happened prior to the 911 call. I explore the meaning of this incident in depth in a recent post entitled "The Crux": http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-crux.html

As far as the "garrote" is concerned, we may never know what prompted John to use such a device. However, as I see it, things might have transpired more or less as follows:

1. John decides he has no choice but to kill his daughter, as he's become convinced she going to expose him (as a child molester).

2. He decides on the most "merciful" means of doing so, i.e., knocking her out from behind, so she will feel no pain and never know who attacked her.

3. Noting that she still has a pulse after the head blow, he decides to finish her off by strangling her. Again, this will be a "merciful" death, as she is completely unconscious.

4. He is reluctant to strangle her by hand, either because he's afraid his prints might be recoverable, or perhaps the thought of direct physical contact repels him. As he is familiar with the general notion of a "garrote" from his time with the navy in the Philippines, and also, as an experienced seaman, is familiar with knots, he decides to prepare a "garrote" type device by which he can strangle her without actually having to touch her.

It does make sense, especially after reading most of the posts on here. Seems like the handwriting 'experts' really swung the focus away from JR early in the game. Forensic handwriting analysis - although I'm sure those guys are very good at what they do - appears to be a 'soft' science that must be taken with a grain of salt. I also liked how you pointed out it gets really complicated when there is an attempt to analyze disguised handwriting, which is a totally different ballgame than figuring out whether a document is forged to look like a particular person's writing. Not to mention, when big legal dollars are on the line, it probably gets even less rigorous, even if the cherry-picking is subconciously driven.

For what it's worth, as a 4th PhD student in biochemistry, I think your work here is a great example of following the scientific method.

I can't agree with this logic. If I create a fake threat, I am not concerned with that threat being carried out - I know there is no risk of beheading, because JonBenet is dead in the basement from a head blow and strangulation.

Sorry, but I don't understand your point. As I see it, John created the threat so we have no reason to believe he was concerned about JonBenet being beheaded. Patsy, on the other hand should have been concerned, so why she'd want to call in uniformed police and friends is a bit of a mystery. As should be evident from the recording of the call, she was out of her mind with panic, so probably wasn't thinking very clearly.

Go back and read your posts. Your speculations and comments are all part of the circus that made life for the Ramseys a living HELL after the death of their daughter. You should all be Sasha.ed of yourselves.

I have a speculation that some of these Anonymous posts may be someone intimately related to the case (or at the very least, paid to be), an IP check on Spokeo could prove interesting for the webmaster.

Up until stumbling upon a link to your blog on the WebSleuth forums, I really did not have any opinion and every theory seemed to be both as likely and unlikely as the next. However, I really like your view on this. The way you present the facts are consistent with the scientific method. An explanation for something isn't always speculation, and I believe in your blog posts you do little to no speculation.

There's no reason for you to be "Sasha'ed" of yourself! For me, this is the only reasonable way to look at it.

Thanks. I don't worry much about who's at the other end of the conversation, but I must admit some people can get pretty nasty. And also persistent. Some of the worst are not Ramsy defenders, but Patsy lovers, convinced beyond reason that Patsy MUST have written that note. Obviously I feel otherwise.

I just found your blog and read the 2 sections you recommended to read first.

And WOW -- very interesting !

I have always believed a "Ramsey Did It" but I went back and forth between BR and PR, with JR as the third choice.

But after reading your theory, I may have to change my mind as it makes a lot of sense.

One question : While all this was going on, Patsy would have been sleeping -- knocked out really, because she obviously would not have heard anything with your theory. So did she take "sleeping pills" and that is why she did not hear anything John was up to ?

Hi MizzMarple. Glad to see you posting here. As far as Pasty's waking is concerned, I'm sure plenty of wives wake up in the middle of the night to notice that their husbands aren't in bed. Husbands, especially those of a certain age, get up regularly at night to urinate. So if John wasn't beside her I don't think she'd have seen that as anything unusual. She'd have turned over and gone back to sleep. If she was worried and called out to him, he could have called back and told her he couldn't sleep and was having a snack or reading. If for some reason she'd decided to go downstairs to check, then we'd probably have two murders to solve, not just one.

Oh, and in case you're wondering why she claimed to have slept soundly through the night, I wouldn't believe her if I were you. As I see this case, John has to be an extremely manipulative person or he'd have been indicted years ago. I think he manipulated both Patsy and Burke to tell a few "white lies" so the police wouldn't suspect "the family." I'm convinced Burke knows more than he's ever said, which is probably why he's refused to be questioned. But I don't think either of them ever suspected John of killing JonBenet or writing the note. After all, he was "ruled out" wasn't he.

Whether the case is ever brought to trial depends exclusively on the courage -- and sense of responsibility -- of the DA. As I see it, there are strong parallels to what happened in Penn State, where Sandusky was coddled for years by those unwilling to see the obvious, and equally unwilling to shake things up. So maybe he can be shamed into acting.

A case can be made. I am making it now. And there's more.

While it's true that John and Burke would be reluctant to testify, a Grand Jury could compel them to do so. Then it would be up to the DA to ask the right questions. The handwriting "experts" would also need to be subpoenaed and also asked some tough questions. Is the DA brave and tough enough to do this? I don't know. Maybe our best bet would be the media, but they too have been remarkably timid. We'll have to wait and see.

As I recall, the accident took place in another city, so it's not likely John was involved. Whether he ever molested her is something we'll probably never know. I don't think this guy was ever a systemic molester or murderer, but he might have been tempted by JonBenet, thanks to the sexualization effect of the kiddie pageant syndrome.

Thanks for your support, MizzMarple, I'm glad to see that you're getting the picture. Hope you'll continue to read and contribute.

If JR and PR were covering for BR, I think JR, the cool CEO would have been the one to contact police if contacting police was ever part of the plan. Not a hysterical PR.

I've been BDI for a long time, but the big problem I have with BDI is that he was sent to FW's house. Now if he harmed his sister, surely JR and PR would worry about his talking, letting something slip.

I'm sure BR knows quite a bit about what happened that night. I'm sure he's put a lot of the pieces together. I don't believe anyone will ever talk, though, and no one will ever be charged because it's impossible to prove in a court of law which Ramsey did what. It might not be difficult to "know" in your own mind, but legally, well, that's something else. Even Casey Anthony got away with it.

I read somewhere that a neighbor noticed that a light on the exterior of the ramseys house that was always on at night was mysteriously turned off the night of the murder. Is there truth to that? Also is it true that a neighbor heard a loud scream from the house that night? If that were true how was PR nor Burke not awakened?

The observations about the light and the scream are only two of a great many pieces of "evidence" in this case that might or might not mean something. All I can say is that they were very thoroughly investigated, and as with so many aspects of the case, were ultimately deemed "inconclusive." Which is why I tend to stay away from all "evidence" of that sort and concentrate largely on what we actually know for sure.

I think it possible to prove in a court of law that 1. an intruder could not have been present; 2. Patsy could not be involved; 3. Burke could safely be ruled out. That leaves only: John. I think it also possible to prove that John lied about certain very basic aspects of the case. I think it possible also to demonstrate that the note was modeled on a computer font, which strongly suggests it was written by John. There are other pieces of evidence that also point to John's involvement, so I do think prosecution - and justice - is possible.

I did read all your posts carefully with an 'open mind'. Please, allow me disagree on certain subjects. First, let's talk about RN. IMO, JR did not and could not write this note. And my opinion has nothing to do with the expert knowledge of the handwriting. My deduction was made simply based on psychological profile of John, by watching his manner of speech, reading his depositions and having related knowledge about his business 'culture'. If John needs to write the ransom note (especially, if he wants to scare Patsy and let her get out of the house so he can finish whatever you has suggested he was trying to accomplish) - the note would be the 'order-like', short, directive and COLD. No sentiments, not 3 page-long with silly, child-like/woman-care details. IMO, RN is the topping on the ice-cream 'staging' (so to speak). It meant to start the official mis-direction. It's police invitation. It's the trigger to start the cover-up. Secondly, I'm not surprised that PR made 911 call. Her hysteria on the phone plays very convincing role. If John would make this 911 call - it would sounds almost non-urgent:). He's very introverted person. So, IMO, John didn't write RN and 911 call was meant to happen as it happens, to start the 'act 1'. You're the playwright, right? As Chechov said, if you've show the gun in the 'act 1' - it should fire in the 'finale'. (paraphrasing, of course:)...So, PR starts the 'act 1'...In regards, who did what - I don't know. I'm 100% sure: John and Petsy knows who killed JBR; Patsy and/or John have been involved in 'staging'; John and Burke will never be persecuted. FINALE.

What you say about the note being short and to the point certainly makes sense. John was a successful businessman and that's how someone like that would communicate. It would also make a much more convincing ransom note if it were short and to the point. All it really needed to say, if it was for real, would be: "We have your daughter. Expect a phone call by 10 o'clock. Don't call the police or she'll die."

Even that wouldn't have been necessary, because all they would have really needed to do was get on the phone and make their demands. No need for a note. So if you're going by psychological profile, then it looks to me like this note is inconsistent with what one would expect from a real kidnapper. Which means it's most likely either John, Patsy or Burke wrote it.

If Burke were capable of writing it, we would have heard about him already, prior to the murder. He'd have been featured as a child prodigy on some talk show or other.

So that leaves Patsy. And sure, Patsy didn't express herself in terse, businesslike language, so maybe the profile fits her better. Unfortunately for this theory, she is the one who called 911. What sort of psychological profile would explain her eagerness to destroy her own staging and provide the police with her own hand written document?

So it seems to me we have to go beyond profiling to solve this case. We have to stick with the facts. Even if this were a play instead of real life, Patsy's writing the note and calling the police on herself would not be believable and the play would be laughed off the stage.

If you read again my post The Purpose of the Note (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-purpose-of-note.html) maybe you'll see why it had to be so long. It wasn't intended simply as a phoney ransom note, but also as part of a coverup plan involving several factors that needed to be made clear to its readers. And if you read it carefully in terms of content, you'll see many expressions of a technical nature that might well fit John's profile much better than Patsy's.

Of course I did read ALL your documents/posts/blogs:)...Therefore, like I stated in my original 'comment', I dont's agree on two things: RN and 911 call. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. You see, to me, these two thigs are related to each other. RN is the trigger to 911. The child is dead since midnight. Time is essentual. Ramsey's family is waiting for them to start the vacation. 'Kidnapping' play must be executed immidietly to explain JBR absence and eventually her death. 'Kidnapping' play was to fool the police, to cover-up the truth. So, why would you think that Patsy would NOT call 911 if she wrote the note? It was not about WHO wrote the RN. It's about to START the action going. And psyhological aspect of it is absolutely important!!! Each of the Ramsey is not professional killers with the long experience of 'cover-up'. What they went through emotionally this night - only God knows! The writing RN (regardless who wrote it), requires some kind of discuss in handwriting and thoughts to produce the LIE. So, Patsy writing the note AND calling the police are just continuation of the same LIE actions. Again, I don't know how to explain it better, but (IMO!!!) RN was written purposely to have reason to call the police, to start the 'kidnapping' play. And if PR wrote RN thinking that it'll fool everyone - she damn well could make 911 call with the same notion to fool the police.

Now, let me say something nice for a change: I like your way of writing...and thinking:). Have agreat day!!!

I humbly suggest that many of your assertions and presumptions of fact, simply do not add up. You cannot leap from 'nor is it likely his parents would have taken such huge risks to cover for him' to omitting Burke from the equation. Subsequent, there were more specious suppositions 'logically' leading to an infallible conclusion. To take on element at a time - what parent wouldn't take huge risks for the one surviving child? If it was a terrible accident, then doubly so. Half the Roman Emperors took such traumatic decisions without flinching...

I agree with everything you wrote except for the part that Patsy didn't write the ransom note and didn't know the content of the note. Patsy's handwriting was considered a match in many ways to the ransom note handwriting. Phrases used were ones Patsy would use. I believe John & Patsy worked on the note together--him dictating some of it, her adding to it. The call to 911 was part of the plan after the note was written. Patsy does hysteria very well--she's a natural. By ignoring the directions in the note they can partly blame their own contacting of police as a reason for JB's death, even though she was already long dead. Further the staging involved both of them. Fibers from PR's sweater worn that night were found in the rope/garrotte (not just on JB's body). I really can't say who delivered the blow to JB's head, but the garrotte was JR's idea. Prior molestation is a clear sign to what was happening to JBR before. Patsy knew that JBR was dead. In one of the books I read it was noted that Patsy would peek through her fingers with her hands up to her face as they waited for the "kidnapper to call." She was boo-hooing and checking to see how her performance was going. No, they are both culpable, IMHO. It's true only 1 of them did the murder itself, but both did the staging, etc.

Read the post again and you'll see that Patsy could not have been involved. Your take on this case seems to be based on someone's personal opinion as to what Patsy is like, what must have happened that night and what happened afterward. None of these are facts, but personal opinions based on evidence that's often dubious, such as the bit about Patsy looking through her fingers. Even if that's true, it's something she could have done for reasons having nothing to do with her guilt or innocence.

I invite you to read more on this blog, where many of the issues you raise are discussed.

Brian Mitchell and Wanda Z. did it. Read what other investigators have to say about it. The murder was committed by some sicko wanderers. They weren't caught and they went on to kidnap Elizabeth Smart. The reason they haven't been charged is politics. Wanda Z. wrote the note, then changed writing hands. Mr.Smart and Mr. Ramsey didn't have anything in common. One was a Mormon from Utah and one was from Michigan. The Ramseys had to wait for justice because there is always someone more rich and more powerful, but you all seem to think just the opposite.

I don't know where else to put this, so I'll ask here. I realize you don't get into things that can't be known, e.g. things that are endlessly speculated on but never proven. Still it's kind of hard not to question some things - so,

If JR did it alone, that means he delivered the blow to the head. Why, do you suppose?

We won't know why until John confesses, assuming he ever will, which is unlikely. But we don't have to know why so long as we can prove he's the only one who could have delivered that blow. My guess is that he killed her in that manner because in his mind it was the least painful way of doing it -- for her but also for him. The blow was delivered from behind, so John didn't even have to look his victim in the eye. She probably never knew what hit her.

If she'd been struck with a golf club, it would have lacerated her scalp and there would have been lots of blood, but there was no external bleeding at all. The crack in her skull was in the back, NOT in her forehead.

" If she'd been struck with a golf club, it would have lacerated her scalp and there would have been lots of blood, but there was no external bleeding at all. The crack in her skull was in the back, NOT in her forehead. "

I disagree here. There was a laceration across the top of her head, here is from the autopsy report:

"Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7x4 inches."

You say that there was no external bleeding at all, and in fact this is what Wecht argues that supports his theory for the blow coming after the strangulation. However it apparently has not occured to either you or Wecht that the blood could have been cleaned up at the scene. The large hole in her head was towards the rear, with the crack extending towards the front. A golf club striking from the front fits this evidence nicely, especially when you consider that Burke is much taller than JB, and JB's forhead may have been angled downward a bit.

Reflection of the scalp means pulling the scalp back from the scull. Thus the scalp wound was visible only at the autopsy, with the scalp "reflected." Thus the hemorrhage would have been on the interior, not the exterior, of the scalp.

If her scalp had been lacerated on the outside, this would have been clearly visible to the examiner, even if the blood had been cleaned up.

John left the note for Patsy... He thought she would tell him first not contact the police seeing as he the note threatens JonBenet's life if the police were called.. He was going to try and get rid of the body from the basement but Patsy calling the police messed that up. I think that's why John made it a point to find the body himself to explain any DNA that might be found linking him to the murder and thus messing up the crime scene IF that was the crime scene. This is a plausible explanation definitely more plausible than the intruder theory..

Yup. You make a good point about John wanting to find the body himself. By lifting her from the blanket and picking her up he made sure there'd be a good reason for his DNA, fibers, etc. to be all over the place. It's called "contamination of the crime scene."

wow, your thinking makes sense, but i always thought the 911 call was part of the staging, just like the ransom note, and yes the note says dont call the police or anyone, yet patsy calls her friends over and the police, even though the ransom note says not to.

my theory is that the ransom note was part of the staging to divert attention away from the family, and the 911 call was also part of the staging to get the police to the house, however, it did always puzzle me why they didnt dispose of her body outside, which would add weight to it being a real abduction.

They didn't dispose of the body outside because they didn't do it. Have you seen the pictures of the back of the house?! The house doesn't look so big from the pictures of the front. I think with the size of the house and a window being broken and able to be opened for a year, some workmen and/or homeless people like Brian Mitchell and Wanda Z. would notice. Maybe the Ramseys with their generosity would have turned a blind eye to an occasional workman sleeping in the basement. Okay, it was Christmas. You can stay here until Christmas is over and then you need to go to a shelter. Their home was open to visiters during the season. They knew so many people. Too many people. Wouldn't you hate to be the one to tell your spouse that you let a workman have a key or let him stay in the basement for a day or two only to have them murder your child? And you didn't even pay enough attention to get a good composite made. Maybe you even agreed to it by phone or through his supervisor. Or maybe the house is so huge that you think oh, well...surely someone you'd given a job to wouldn't rob you and if someone was in the basement, they would stay there. But you've got business to attend to and you get your wires crossed on occasion and delegate authority. There is a connection to Wanda Z. and/or Brian Mitchell and loose lips sink ships. Wanda saw and heard enough to write the note. Did she really think John was a Southerner or was she supposed to write something indicating that he was. They haven't been charged because someone else might get bad publicity from it. The Ramseys woke up to a nightmare. It is not that they were rich and powerful at all. It may be because there were other people who wanted to be king of the mountain. Or maybe not. Maybe the government doesn't want to try two more convicts who are already behind bars. This little girl's life was worth more than a whole lot of trouble for government and they ought not give up the way they have. God bless the little girl and her mother who is now with her. I beg you to consider that someone who did it again was the one who did it before: Brian Mitchell and Wanda Z. They need to come clean! It is their only way to escape Hell.

The 911 call couldn't be part of the staging, because 1. it brought the police into the picture with the body still in the house, thus negating the alleged kidnappiung; 2. it resulted in a hand printed note being made available to the authorities for examination. If the call had not been made, then the writer of the note would have had an entire day and the following night to dump the body AND destroy the note, claiming the kidnappers wanted it returned. He would THEN have called in the police, who would have had NO evidence to use against him, since there was no longer a body in the house and no "ransom note" to examine.

I see that as evidence of her innocence, Princess. Surely, if she'd been up all night, clubbing, sexually violating, and strangling her daughter, she would have taken the time to shower and change before calling the police. There was certainly no hurry. The trip to Charlevoix could easily have been cancelled due to "illness." And the ransom note would have given the Ramseys the perfect excuse not to call the police right away.

What needs explaining, as I see it, is not the fact that she was wearing the same outfit, but the insistence on the part of so many that this must be seen as evidence of guilt. This only reinforces, in my mind, the idea that at a certain point a "bandwagon" mentality set in, and anything and everything she did that seemed unusual was interpreted as evidence against her.

Great blog - wish I had discovered it sooner! I have still so much to read but I just want to fully understand your theory. John was the sole writer of the RN and murderer of JBR, right? Is there any evidence that PR knew of the abuse of JBR by JR? As flakey Patsy seemed in those interviews, don't you think she suspected the truth (if your theory is correct) and why would she then protect John? He killed her only daughter, after all. He may have intimidated her during the marriage but this is a much bigger situation.

Yes, John was the sole murderer and writer of the note. And no, I don't see any evidence Patsy knew or suspected John of abusing JonBenet. She certainly lied, yes, but as far as I've been able to determine, all her lies were in support of John's version of what happened. I think the fact that he was "ruled out" so soon enabled him to manipulate both her and Burke without them ever suspecting him of any involvement in the murder or coverup. For some reasons why she'd be willing to lie on his behalf, see the following blog post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/white-lies.html

In my comments below, keep in mind that I realize that the kidnappers are fake, and that the ransom note is fake, and I assume that John is the killer for the sake of argument.

If John was the sole writer of the ransom note, and he never meant for the note to be found by police, then why did he write the "War and Peace" of ransom notes, knowing that only Patsy would read it? Did he think it would convince her more of its authenticity? If so, how? By making it appear that the intruder was someone who knew the family?

Secondly, if John meant to dispose of the ransom note by giving it back to the kidnapper, why wouldn't the kidnapper include in the ransom note to make sure to bring the ransom note with him? And what would prevent John from making a copy of the ransom note, for example by scanning it (if he had a scanner), or simply copying the content by hand, given that going to a copy place might tip off the kidnappers who are watching his every move? Police would eventually ask him why he didn't make a copy, and it seems unlikely that he'd bring it to the meeting spot for the kidnappers unless they ask for it. Unless they ask for it by phone, which leads me to the question of how John would arrange a fake call to the house with "further instructions" as the note explains? Does he think he can disguise his voice with his wife? And wouldn't involving someone else to do that increase his risk of someday being caught?

Third, do you think that John would have taken the money out of his bank and "delivered" it to the kidnappers, by simply leaving the house so Patsy thinks that is what he is doing, and with what reason to give Patsy (and later, the police) as to why he wasn't able to get JB back? Wouldn't you think that this would open a large can of worms that the police will investigate, only to eventually find out that his delivery of the money was fake? It seems Patsy would insist on notifying police when it is realized that they paid the ransom but didn't get their child back.

"If John was the sole writer of the ransom note, and he never meant for the note to be found by police, then why did he write the "War and Peace" of ransom notes, knowing that only Patsy would read it?"

I can't read John's mind, so can't say for sure. But it looks to me as though the note needed to be long because 1. it needed to be really scary, to frighten Patsy into not calling the police; 2. it needed to set up a complicated scenario by which John would have a full day and night to complete his staging at the window and dump the body -- if seen near the site where the body eventually would be found, he could claim he'd been delivering the ransom, according to the detailed instructions in the note.

While it was intended for Patsy, it was also important that the police be aware of its contents. Which is why I believe he would have made a copy for their benefit. Not a scanned copy or a xerox, of course, but a copy in his own hand or on the computer. That way no one would ever know he'd used a pad from the house and written it in his own hand.

I think his plan would have been to call in friends to take Patsy and Burke to safety while he negotiated with "the kidnappers." This is why he made sure to address the note to himself personally. The same friends would also have been shown the note, so they could serve as witnesses to its contents.

While it's true that "the kidnappers" would not have wanted John to xerox the note, he could have claimed they had him under surveillance the whole time, so he was afraid to go to a xerox facility. No scanner was ever mentioned in any evidence list so I doubt he had one at home. As for the kidnapper's call, he could have made the call himself from a phone booth. Since Patsy and Burke would no longer be at the house, but staying with friends, the call would have been picked up by the answering machine. He would, of course, have said nothing, but this would place a record in the phone company files that he'd received a call from a phone booth at that time.

I'm not saying that every detail of the above was necessarily part of his plan, but he would have had those options. It's possible the plan wasn't thought through that carefully and he was just improvising. But the plan I've outlined is a plan that could have worked.

If all had gone well, the police would certainly have been suspicious, but there wouldn't be a single piece of evidence linking John or anyone else in the house to the kidnapping and murder. He and Patsy would have been seen as innocent victims.

"It seems Patsy would insist on notifying police when it is realized that they paid the ransom but didn't get their child back."

Yes of course, but by that time the body would have been dumped, so it would be time to call the police anyhow.

Ok, these answers seem plausible, and explain how John would deal with preventing that ransom note from getting into the hands of the police would might tell it was John's handwriting by using experts to examine it.

Of course, it was also good protection for John that it just so happened that his handwriting looks nothing like the handwriting he did on the ransom note, which looks much more like Patsy's. ;)

I've never seen the examples of his writing he provided to the police. Apparently they look very different from the note. But the court document that appeared on the Internet some years ago, and has never been questioned by anyone in a position to know, does look a lot like the note. If you doubt me, look for yourself: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html

Patsy's writing looks nothing like the note. See for example http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-left-hand-sample-revisited.html and the following post, comparing her London letter with the note. What do YOU see?

I disagree and so do many experts. The London note was written with her right hand, the ransom note likely with her left hand. Even still, similar patterns are seen such as alternating the using of cursive and manuscript letter "A"'s and many more similarities. The left-hand sample that Patsy did for police looks very similar to the ransom note, keeping in mind that when Patsy wrote the samples she was trying her best to disguise her writing from that of the ransom note (where her writing was also disguised).

Her left hand sample looks totally different from the note. Give it up, my anonymous friend. You've been brainwashed! By "experts." Check it out: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-left-hand-sample-revisited.html

Lots of people use both manuscript and cursive "a". My God, just look for yourself.

DocG, my friend, you are coming unglued a bit, just like your theory about who killed JB and why. I think you need to rename your blog from "Solving the JBR case" to "Let me convince you my theory about the JBR case is the right one". But seriously, I appreciate the opportunity to post my views, and after all, it is your blog. And you seem quite intelligent, but I will say it here that I don't think you've ever been more wrong about something in your life, unless of course you've been more wrong about something, but my point is, Daddy didn't do it, and the most glaringly obvious proof of that is that Daddy never did anything but play the CEO role while everybody else worked for him. JonBenet was Mom's toy, not his, and he had no reason to disrespect her let alone kill her.

Indeed, I've seen you say that Patsy couldn't be the RN writer since she called 911 about 100 times on this blog. Your whole "theory" is based on that false premise, and you refuse to look at reasons why she could have called 911 whilst being in on the coverup. When logical reasons are given as to why it was possible and in fact probable, you fire back with your usual "canned" statements. It seems to be your own brand of logic, and I'll give you that -- it's unique. And it may work for low level computer languages, but it doesn't address how real people act.

Thanks for the reply. I'll check out that link and I have so much else to learn from your great site. But couldn't JR have still pulled off his plan, which he has to this day actually, without the RN? It seems way too risky for him to try to replicate a different style of handwriting. I know some people can do it (heck my old uncle Wally used to send birthday cards "signed" by famous people in all kinds of handwriting styles when it was just him) and who knows, maybe JR was "planning" this for a while and had some practice. The Zodiac killer had the advantage of being ambidextrous so would switch hands when asked for a handwriting sample. JR could have written the note with his left hand like the Zodiac, or would that have been too obvious? Just hoping you might clear up some of my lingering doubts. But when all of that happened, I thought it was exceedingly strange that JR, upon discovering the body, picked her up, carried her up the stairs and presented her to police, claiming, "This is my daughter." I think most innocent people would have been in a state of utter shock, not even wanting to glance at the corpse, much less pick it up and show it to the cops. Very bizarre. Unless he deliberately wanted to disrupt the crime scene and contaminate any DNA evidence.

"But couldn't JR have still pulled off his plan, which he has to this day actually, without the RN?"

Well, he could simply have staged a breakin and claimed someone broke into the house that night, and raped and murdered his daughter. No need to stage a kidnapping, true. But in the wake of the Susan Smith case, he would have known that such a story would be seen as very suspicious. And in the absence of any concrete evidence of an intruder's presence, no footprints, fingerprints, semen, etc., the authorities would very quickly have focused on him, as both child abuser and killer.

I think he realized his only hope was to figure out some way to get JonBenet's body out of the house before the police got involved. And the only way to do that was to stage a kidnapping. The note thus provided him with both evidence of a kidnapper and the perfect excuse to delay calling the police until the body was safely out of the house, dumped or buried in some remote spot. Of course, his plan was blown when Patsy called 911 despite the warnings in the note, which she might not even have read. So the plan never actually worked for him, it failed. The only reason he wasn't arrested, tried and convicted was the absurd finding that ruled him out as writer of the note, thus forcing the BPD to focus on Patsy.

I don't think John planned any of this ahead of time. If that were the case, he would not have had to hand print his note, but would have typed it or printed it on a computer printer, and would certainly not have used paper taken from a pad in the house. It looks like killing JonBenet must have been an on the spot decision, probably prompted by something she said that night, leading him to believe she was going to expose him.

And yes, I think John probably wrote it with his left hand, or more likely switching back and forth from left to right. The legal document he wrote is back slanted, suggesting he's ambidextrous. He might have arranged to provide the examiners with exemplars from his right hand only, destroying all the left handed ones. The legal doc. was probably made public by the person he was suing, not by him, and was probably never seen by the "experts" who ruled him out.

As for his finding the body himself, I don't think he would have had much choice at that point, because he'd been told to thoroughly search the house. I also think the body would probably have been hidden away in a corner, covered by a blanket. By finding it himself, he was able to testify it was "right out in the open." But Fleet White was in that room earlier and never saw it.

Why didn't he just take the body out of the house right after the the crime was committed instead of leaving it there to carry out the next morning during daylight hours? Wouldn't it be easier to remove under cover of darkness? Why just leave it there and go to bed? I still do not think an intruder can be ruled out.

Taking the body out of the house at that time would have been extremely risky. Someone in the neighborhood might have spotted his car. Patsy could have awakened at any time and noticed he wasn't home and the car was gone. Starting the car and opening the garage door could have been noisy and possibly awakened her. (If she'd awakened and went looking for him while he was in the house, he could have told her he couldn't sleep and was reading or having a snack. Or if she persisted, he could have killed her as well.)

An intruder can be ruled out for many reasons. No sign of forced entry. No reason to write a note while in the house. No reason to leave a ransom note without taking the body. Also, there is clear evidence John lied about breaking the basement window the previous summer. Which tells us he himself must have broken it the night of the crime to stage an intruder breakin.

I believe he did not lie about breaking the window during the summer. Patsy confirmed this in a police interview that both she and the housekeeper cleaned up some glass in the basement from the broken window so there are two people who can corroborate his story. Neither John nor Patsy remember if that window was replaced or left in its broken state. So no forced entry was needed if that window was broken. The note was left because the intruder was there to kidnap the child, not murder her.

John's story about breaking the window earlier is not credible. Nor is it credible that neither John nor Patsy were unable to recall whether the pane had ever been replaced. The housekeeper denied knowing anything about any broken window, and ultimately accused Patsy of lying about it. I've gone over all this in detail in a series of four blog posts, beginning here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/clear-evidence-of-staging-basement.html

The house was so big no one paid any attention to the window in the basement. They were all very busy people and they delegated authority. It isn't the housekeeper's job to fix broken windows. It is the job of workmen like Brian Mitchell, who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. They may have thought about the window but they weren't thinking someone would enter it. They just weren't thinking.

Wanda Z. wrote the note and her partner Brian Mitchell killed the child. She should have come forward but she was a sick bitch and went on to help him keep Elizabeth Smart captive. Yes, there was an age difference between Elizabeth and JonBenet. That is why Elizabeth is still alive. She was older and stronger. Brian Mitchell, I read, even had a history of sexual assaults on toddlers.

Sorry, but we have no choice but follow the evidence. And there is no evidence linking either Wanda or Brian to this crime. Nor is there any evidence any intruder was present. All the evidence points away from an intruder.

There isn't a lot of evidence to follow when the case was mishandled so badly! I have to look at what is most obvious. Patsy Ramsey, even with her faults; we all have them, was a normal mother. Look at the pictures! Do you really think she would do that to her child?! John Ramsey and his son Burke were normal human beings too. There is nothing in John's background and Burke, being a 12 year old boy growing up in a normal family wouldn't know or be capable of the kind of hideous act of that garote or however you spell it kind of knot. Whoever did that is an experienced, sophisticated, depraved barely human being. I don't even think that Patsy in her very worst moment would ever let anyone stage a scene like that to cover up her having hit her child. She wasn't a very young woman. She didn't have a history of abuse. But people expect me to believe that if she had struck her child with an object or with enough force to kill her, that she wouldn't immediately call 911. She would have tried to save her. She was hoping unrealistically that JonBenet could be raised like Lazarus. What is so awful about this case is that incredible amount of suffering that no family deserves. And it wouldn't end because the case was handled so poorly. Look at all the other cases where relatives have killed. They almost always say there was some sort of household accident. Look how long Drew Peterson lived freely after murdering Kathleen Savio! Don't you think if Patsy had struck JonBenet and killed her...it would have been written off as an accident. With all the other people in the house, don't you think an angry Patsy might have awakened them? She was an emotional woman. Do you mean to tell me that she gave her daughter some pineapple and then took her to the basement and tortured her, killed her, put a suitcase with a book under the window, then went upstairs and composed a manifesto that would be sure to make the family look guilty on her own paper and place it strategically on the stairs because why, she wanted to scare herself? You need to look outside of a nice, All-American family for that!

You need to read what I've written in the above post and elsewhere in this blog. I feel sure Patsy is innocent. It IS ridiculous for anyone to assume she'd have wanted to kill her daughter -- and gone to such lengths simply to cover for an accident.

John, on the other hand, is a completely different story. In fact we know very little about him. He is reported to have been away from home frequently, traveling abroad. And we have NO information about his activities while traveling. We do know that he systematically lied to his first wife for some time, as he was having an affair, so it would be wrong to assume he's some sort of perfect Christian gentleman, as Kolar seems to think.

We know that father-daughter incest is far more common than previously believed -- and has happened in the "best" of families. A few years ago we saw televised exposes of child molesters posing as teenagers on chat rooms so they could make contact with vulnerable kids. What truly surprised me, as I'm sure it did everyone else, was how respectable so many these creeps seemed to be. And in every single case, as I recall, the perp was male.

You need to read what I've written about that window, based on John's extremely unconvincing testimony. Check out this post and the three following it: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/clear-evidence-of-staging-basement.html

Kolar's book makes abundantly clear who *actually* killed JonBenet, and it was not John, as you seem so sure it was. (...Although of course both John and Patsy were involved in the coverup. Patsy most likely wrote the note. J+P, in their haste, made some big mistakes in communicating/coordinating things, which was why the police ended up coming while the body was still there.)

I'm sorry, but it makes me a little sick to see this kind of cockiness on your blog: "My problem was that I had solved [the case]." Actually, Kolar solved it...and his conclusion was different from yours.

Yes, I read Kolar's book very carefully. He insinuates that he's solved the case, implying JonBenet was killed by Burke, with Patsy and John staging to cover for him. But he never actually comes out and makes that claim specifically. Nor does he provide any evidence to back it up.

I'm not sure if there's a technical term for this type of fallacy, but what it amounts to is the assumption that by demonstrating something is possible one has thereby proven it must in fact have happened. He cites various studies of juvenile offenders to demonstrate that in fact a nine year old boy could be sexually active and could be capable of murder. Combining that with what he sees as evidence that Burke may have been a troubled child, he strongly implies that because Burke seems to have been troubled, and because SOME children his age have committed similar crimes, he is the most likely member of the Ramsey household to have committed both the sexual attack and the murder.

This is sheer nonsense. Just because SOME children of his age have done some horrible things does NOT tell us anything whatsoever about Burke. There is in fact no evidence linking Burke to the crime, nor any reason to assume he was involved in any way.

Kolar DOES do an excellent job of debunking the intruder theory, no question, and this for me represents the real value of his book. Having convinced himself that no intruder could have been present in the house that night, and on that point I fully agree, he is then left with the three individuals known to have been present: John, Patsy and Burke. Clearly at least one of them must be involved.

Kolar's predicament is typical for just about everyone who's ever tried to make sense of this case. John was "ruled out" as writer of the note, and it never occurs to Kolar that this could have been a mistake. He is fully aware of the very suspicious nature of John's activities and testimony, but ultimately never even considers the possibility that John could have either molested or murdered his daughter.

Unlike many others, he is also convinced that Patsy could not have killed a child she clearly loved to distraction. Which leaves: Burke. This is in fact the basis for his "solution" of the case. He manages to rule out the one person in the house who was in fact far more likely to have been sexually abusing JonBenet, and whose actions are by far the most suspicious, i.e., John Ramsey. And once John and Patsy are ruled out, he has no choice but to focus on Burke. And so, as have so many others who've led themselves astray on this matter, he looks for anything he can find that seems like it might possibly point to Burke -- and presents it as though it were actual evidence against him.

For more on Kolar's book, see my three part review, beginning with the following post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/kolars-book.html

If I were investigating this case, I would without a doubt question BR now that he is of legal age, I have a deep suspicion that he knows something, again I have a deep suspicion it was maybe him, or both him, and an older boy child friend that sneaked into the basement area of the house that night, and caused the death of JBR, and the parents have tried to cover the crime up to protect BR, my reason for thinking this is because of Investigative information that I read online years ago now , what I read was something about the Ramsey family going to a Christmas party, either that day/evening of the murder, or maybe the night before, and the article said that some of the children at the party were caught playing doctor, this is very close to what I read in the investigation information posted online about this, and it's my reason for thinking maybe one of the older boy children who was at the party came over late Christmas night to the Ramsey house, and entered through a small basement window to meet BR to continue what turned out to be a deadly children's game of playing doctor, again this is just an opinion by me, and not proven as of now (2012). It is my true belief that one day this crime will be solved, and the killer of JBR will be brought to justice, as well it should be.

I agree that Burke must know some things he's never revealed. For one thing he'd know about the basement window, and when it was really broken. He might also have been awake during the attack on JonBenet. The fact that John and his lawyers so strongly resisted allowing Burke to be questioned by law enforcement specialists, rather than a psychiatrist, is also extremely suspicious.

Your point about an older friend of Burke's is certainly worth exploring, especially when we consider that Burke might have let this person into the house, and that an older boy, possibly a teenager, could have written the note.

However, as with literally all other intruder theories, we simply have no evidence to support any of them. And Burke is NOT talking.

The problem with any theory involving Burke is not so much whether he could have done it, or even if a friend of his could have done it, but the behavior of the Ramseys. The 911 call tells us that both of them could not have been involved in a coverup. I've analyzed that situation in various posts and I think that point should be clear. So if Burke, or a friend of Burke, was involved, then for some reason John decided to cover it up on his own, without telling Patsy anything about it. And one has to ask: why.

I find it impossible to believe that any parent, least of all a successful business man, would want to take such huge risks to protect a son who had just sexually molested and murdered his beloved and much doted upon daughter. I can see parents lying to protect a child, I can see them coming up with a phoney alibi, but I cannot see either John or Patsy being reckless enough and foolish enough to go to such lengths and take the huge risk of staging a kidnapping in such a situation. And if the guilty party was some "friend," then it's especially hard so swallow.

We are left, then, with the possibility that John and Patsy actually bought the "ransom note" written by the friend, agreeing to call the police in all innocence, with John remaining clueless to this day.

That's an intriguing theory. But I find it very difficult to take seriously. For one thing, who is this older friend of Burke's, who he'd have trusted enough to let into the house? I've never heard anyone of that sort ever mentioned. Secondly, as with any intruder theory, we have to ask: what is the purpose of a ransom note if the body is left on the premises? Why would this "friend" have bothered to write it unless he actually intended to take either his victim or her body out of the house? Once the body is found, the ransom note helps no one. And remember, this is a hand printed note that could be traced back to the writer. Leaving such a note simply makes no sense, either for some strange intruder OR some evil friend of Burke's.

The other friend was Burke's same age, he is Doug Stine and the Stines were friends of the Ramseys, so much that the Ramseys stayed at their house for awhile after the murder, and that's where paparazzi would try to get photos of the Ramseys. It is not too likely that the Ramseys would cover for Burke's friend Doug if Doug was the killer, unless Burke was the killer and Doug would then fall under the umbrella of protection of Burke.

If there was a coverup, then both Ramseys were in on the coverup and evidence points to that being the case. Mrs Ramsey calling 911 on the morning of the 26th does not mean she was not in on the coverup. It just means that calling 911 was part of the plan, given that they weren't exactly going to drive JB's body out to the Arizona desert somewhere and bury her. When you have a body in the house, you throw up your hands and claim someone else did it, which is exactly what the Ramseys did with the aid of the ransom note (and a heck of a lot of lawyering up). That's how I see it anyway. So yes, it could have been Burke and his friend Doug who were playing doctor with JB when things went out of control somehow. A baseball bat and golf club were both found in the Ramsey yard where they usually would not be found.

If calling 911 was part of the plan, it was a terrible plan. If they didn't want to dump the body, then they would not have reported a kidnapping and there would have been no note. For my reasons for believing they could not have been in on it together, read here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/08/in-it-together.html

As far as a friend of Burke's is concerned, all people with connections with the family were thoroughly investigated. There was no intruder.

I'd argue that it was a good plan, because after all it worked in the end.

Reporting to 911 that their daughter is dead in the basement, or dead in her bed, with what they thought was a broken neck, or missing (and then let police find her in the cellar) was considered by the Ramseys to be inferior to the using a ransom note as a reason to call 911.

John Ramsey, the business mastermind, made a "risk play" with the ransom note -- which -- when added with tons of legal protection -- wound up working nicely in the end. "Nicely" is a relative term so though it worked to keep all family members out of jail (and Burke hypnotized from thence on thinking he did not kill his sister), it really ruined their lives in the end.

I've been thinking a lot about the 911 call that was placed on December 23rd during the Ramsey Christmas Party. I'm interested to know if you think that was an innocent mistake or if you think it has anything to do w/the murder of JonBenet. Would love to hear your thoughts on that.

That 911 call is one of many odd elements of this very odd case. If we try to account for all of them we wind up in a morass. Which is why I've based my thinking primarily on evidence that is clear and undisputed. It's interesting to speculate on the possibility that JonBenet may have felt threatened and was calling for help. But we have no way of knowing that. Could have been a coincidence.

Something happened that night and only the Ramseys know for sure what.I dont believe John was a pedo and I dont believe patsy was capable of deliberate cruelty..so it was either a)an accident b)Burke who was autistic.If (a) why the staging?Surely,most people would ring the police and say she fell and hit her head.That leaves (b).Autism disconnects people from reality or normal feelings,making them detached.This and only this can explain what happened.Burke killed her accidentally and the desperate parents made quite a hash of trying to stage an intruder scenario which fooled a sub-standard police dept.Patsy and John both knew what happened and both were in on the staging.Morally,neither are guilty.they did what they felt they must.I can understand why some might prefer the more salacious pedo angle but look for the obvious and its almost always the answer.The simple explanation fits.Burke was autistic and didnt know his own strength.He killed the poor girl without really appreciating his own actions,and the frantic parents covered for him.Maybe the police even knew this was what happened and stymied any attempt to convict the parents who they saw as morally innocent.

From what you've written it looks as though you haven't yet read any of the other posts on this blog, since none of these ideas is addressed in your comment. I suggest you do some more reading here and also think a bit more about the case.

If Burke were autistic, there would be all sorts of evidence associated with that fact, but there is none, and no reason at all to assume he was or is. And if he killed his sister, it's very hard to believe his parents would both have decided to take such huge risks to cover for him. Parents have in the past certainly covered for their children, but never in such an extreme and bizarre manner.

In any case, I don't think John was or is a pedophile in the usual sense of that word. But there is more than enough evidence that he sexually molested and murdered his daughter that night, so whether he was "a pedophile" by some definition or other of that term is beside the point. If you read further in this blog you'll see that there is very good reason to conclude that he is in fact the guilty party.

I have read a mountain of material on the case.Your blog makes good suppositions but Im afraid thats all they are.Nobody will ever know for sure.Only the Ramseys know.I dont even think we can rule out an intruder scenario although I agree its highly unlikely.But it cant be ruled out.And if thats so,then not even the Ramseys know and so the case will remain unsolved forever I suspect.I remember reading evidence that Burke was not a normal child.Not openly autistic but certainly one who occupied his own little world displaying little emotion.He may have resented JBR for all the atention she stole.It was probably an accident but she was given a glancing blow to the head(autopsy evidence) maybe from a flashlight.The scream is heard by a neighbor.The parents have 5-6 hours to frantically stage a murder.John would have done the staging on JBR's body,Patsy the note.The "evidence" of the enhanced 911 tape has Patsy,JOHN and Burke all by the phone and possibly the words "Were not talking to you" are heard.Its not concrete but fits well with what makes sense.An accident followed by a cover-up.Also my gut instinct clearly tells me that theres something wrong with that 911 call.Patsy is definitely faking it.Not her grief.Thats genuine for sure.But her ignorance of the crime is faked.She knew what had transpired in that house that night.In my view the BDI theory is the strongest and most simple and rational theory.Most people arent sexual deviants,most people dont abuse their own 6 yearold child.Its possible but against the odds.Nothing in the backgrounds of either Patsy or John suggests anything to the contrary.If the intruder theory is discounted,we are left with the accident(burke but possibly Patsy) followed by a cover-up theory.I have one question Im hoping you can answer.All these years later I still wonder why the autopsy wasnt able to prove categorically one way or another whether the poor girl was dead or alive when garrotted.Did they in fact prove this?I seem to remember one expert said one thing and another refuted it.If already dead,it was staged after an accidental blow.If not,she was murdered.

I agree it's unlikely anyone will ever know for sure exactly what happened. But we do know for sure that John Ramsey lied about what happened that night. We know for sure that both John and Patsy could not have been working as a team -- if they were, there would have been no 911 call. We know also that the blow to the head was not a glancing blow, but a deliberate blow, delivered with tremendous force, a blow that cracked her skull from end to end. It was described as a blow capable of felling a grown man. Which makes it hard to see Burke as the one who delivered it. There is in fact no reason whatsoever to suspect Burke's involvement, though we have good reason to suspect he knows some things about what happened that he's never revealed. When a child is sexually molested by someone living in her home, and we are forced to choose between the mother, the frail 9 year old son who never showed any sexual interest in females, and the father, the father is by far the most likely suspect. The ONLY reason John was discounted was the decision to rule him out as writer of the note, a decision totally unwarranted by any forensic science known to man.

Keep in mind also that a head blow could easily have been explained away as an accident. No need to stage such an elaborate crime scene or go to such trouble to write such a long "ransom" note. And why bother to write such a note if your plan is to call the police in when you know the body is still in the house.

As for an intruder, there is no way someone enters a house with the intent to kidnap, and waits to write his long ransom note while he's still in that house. Also no good reason for a kidnapper not to actually kidnap his victim. I did consider an alternative scenario that accounted for some of this, but as I made clear there are serious problems with that scenario as well. (See http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/12/new-improved-intruder-theory.html)

As far as the question whether or not JonBenet was dead when she was strangled, this is one of literally hundreds of inconclusive aspects of the case, with the "experts" all over the place. Fortunately we need not rely on any of these "experts." Based ONLY on the most obvious facts of the case, the identity of the perpetrator of both the murder and coverup should be clear as day.

I am new here and have been reading your blog with much interest. I too was a PDI based on PR's almost identical ways of writing as compared to the RN (her # 20, her rounded u's that curve almost into o's, etc. etc.) BUT it never made sense to me why she would spend all that time on that RN and then turn around and very convincingly call 911 thus negating the purpose for the RN. If she could write such a long and detailed note she wouldn't panic shortly thereafter and call 911, would not make any sense.

I think what is very interesting is how his close friend Fleet White distances himself from the R's after that day. He saw something raw and unrehearsed (just as Arndt did).

I wonder why the police didn't see the cobwebs on the window shards and sill right off the bat? They were quite visible on the videotape. Even a simpleton could figure that one out. I also wonder why JR didn't provide an open door.

PR wearing the same sweater is not suspicious in the least, in fact I agree with you that it shows her innocence. If it was a holiday sweater, expensive, relatively clean from the party the day before, she would easily wear it again the next day, especially since she wouldn't be seeing the same people (except family) and was going to be traveling anyway. Women wear things like that multiple times before dry cleaning or washing.

I read somewhere that a stun gun was on the premises. Not sure if that is true, but would explain those round bruises and the soiled/wet pajamas or bottoms in JBR's bedroom.

Burke has to know quite a bit of what went on. What a thing to have to live with.

I also read that JBR was starting to talk to teachers about seeing people in dark robes, probing her private parts, etc. Do you know if that was true?

I am surprised JBR's pediatrician didn't sit up and take notice about multiple yeast infections and treating her 27 times in two years. Unbelievable. And why wasn't PR wondering why? I am an RN and those types of infections are not common in an otherwise normal healthy young girl unless she has a compromised immune system.

Just some thoughts. I hope this new book by Kolar can help bring JR to justice. But some day he WILL face the ultimate Judge and won't be able to hide anymore behind that very "likeable" facade.

Thanks, Kay. Looks like you definitely get it. As for the cobweb in the window, I'm sure the police took that into account when they reported there was "no sign of forced entry." But not all the evidence was made public at the time, so Kolar's video is especially interesting.

Your wondering about why John didn't provide an open door makes sense. I wonder about that too. Instead, he reported that he'd checked the doors and all were locked. (Later he hedged on that, but no matter, since the police also checked and confirmed that they were all locked.) My best guess is that Patsy's 911 call must have thrown John into a state of panic and confusion. It seems clear he must have been counting on the police eventually identifying the basement window as the point of entry and exit, assuming all had gone according to plan. So he was probably still fixated on that idea when he reported the locked doors. It was only a bit later, I'd suppose, that he'd have realized his window staging wasn't going to fly, which is why he felt forced to concoct his story about breaking in earlier. He must have been in a panic at that point and just desperately improvising.

No stun gun was found on the premises, and there is no reason to assume a stun gun was used. That was pure Lou Smit spin. The wounds on JonBenet's body could have been produced in all sorts of ways. She was probably at one point struggling with her attacker and would have gotten knocked around in the process.

"I also read that JBR was starting to talk to teachers about seeing people in dark robes, probing her private parts, etc. Do you know if that was true?"

The "men in robes touching her privates" is crap from conspiracy websites. Conspiracy theorists have their own "theories" which are based on their own paranoid schizophrenic delusions. Such as John's company was owned by Lockheed Martin which is a defense contractor so JonBenet was murdered to obtain info to carry out 9/11 attacks and absurd garbage like that.

Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen that interview. I'm sorry but I can't go by body language or pauses, or anything like that, because there are so many reasons why someone would behave a certain way. There is no substitute for evidence, and as I see it, ALL the evidence points to John. He could come across like Mother Teresa and I'd still be convinced of his guilt.

Interesting excerpts taken from one of the countless websites out there, but intriguing:

"John Ramsey's daughter (from his first marriage), Elizabeth, had uncovered several vivid memories of Satanic, ritual sexual abuse after a failed suicide attempt (during the ensuing therapy sessions) in which her Father apparently played a major role in the rituals. Within several months of uncovering the memories and going 'public' with them (talking to friends and family members) she was dead - killed in a 'freak' car accident the manner in which has never been fully resolved to investigators satisfaction."

"JonBenet had expressed discomfort to her mother Patsy Ramsey concerning her 'private place' about two months before her death. Beginning app. two weeks before her murder, JonBenet began to talk - talk about scary people in long, black robes who gathered around her and stuck 'things' into her private place - things that hurt her. She also spoke vaguely of darkness around her and the possible use of candles. Several of the Ramsey's friends; friends from their Church, the Whites and the Fernies as well as others, heard this along with several of her teachers and questioned her about it. After JonBenet's murder they went to the Police with the information but apparently due to the DA, nothing ever came of it. The friends from the Church abruptly ended their relationship(s) with the Ramsey's and several of them openly stated they thought them guilty of murdering their daughter:

(A) The housekeeper said that she occasionally saw JonBenet's panties "soaking" in the sink. All women know that soaking is used to remove blood stains."

"JonBenet was not the only child in the family who had a history of bed wetting...Burke also had the same problem past the age when most children start sleeping through the night without a bed wetting incident. A definite indicator of emotional trauma caused by abuse, and possible sexual abuse as well as abandonment."

Can you supply sources for these stories? Were they reported in the local papers? The tabs? Tabloid information is notoriously unreliable, so I have to say I'm skeptical of the first two stories. As far as panties soaking in the sink, sorry but that tells us nothing unless we have more information to confirm the presence of blood. As for bed wetting, that's a common problem, sometimes even for older children.

No, no sources listed with those excerpts, so no, they are not verifiable at all. And yes, bedwetting is very common in children so that in itself is not unusual.

It is hard to watch those interviews of JR and know that something horrible happened to his little girl in his house, under his watch, and he knows nothing about it? Such a travesty.

I also read some reports of the Santa Claus who was at the Ramsey's house sometime that week for one of their Christmas parties, how his own daughter was abducted years before along with a friend - the friend was sexually assaulted while Santa's daughter was forced to watch. No one was murdered in that incident but isn't that an odd coincidence? He also kept a harp with names of dead children he had known carved on it. That may not be criminal but I'm sorry, that is downright creepy. He apparently told this story as part of his talk when he spoke at JBR's memorial service.

Yes, knowing what I know about this case, I'm continually impressed with how calmly John lies. Lance Armstrong was also a very effective liar, wasn't he?

As far as Santa Claus is concerned, yes, there are some strange things about him and the story about his daughter and her friend does seem to be a remarkable coincidence. But if you study this case long enough you'll find a great many odd people and odd coincidences.

Doc, a lot of what you propose makes sense. There are a couple of things that are not addressed. Why was Patsy fully dressed and with full make up on when the Police showed up 8 minutes after the 911 call? Why did they stay together after the murder? Surely, both of them knew that the whole note/intruder scenario was ludicrous. If we assume that Burke was too weak to cause JBR's injuries, then they would know it had to be one of them. If John did do it, why wasn't Patsy on the phone to the cops right away. No, she stayed with him even after the original turmoil. That leaves only one explanation.If Burke had hit Jon Benet and caused the fracture, then went and told his parents, they would have been right at her side. Without realizing that she was still alive, they assume she is dead. There is a history of troubling behavior by Burke and they realize that if they tell the truth to the police a 9 year old boy is going to go through life with a death over his head. They lose, effectively, 2 children in one night. The rest of the time until the 911 call is spent coming up with the cover story and staging. This explains Patsy's appearance. Jon Benet and Burke had their bedrooms and playrooms on the same floor. If they had gotten up during the night due to be excited about the trip in the morning and began to play, there is every possibility that like any little boy, Burke might have gotten upset about something JBR did, and then hit her over the head. I saw the Kolar video and look forward to his book, but he disproved the stun gun theory with the railroad tracks. Burke is the only one who would stab JBR with the pieces. One in the back. Prior to the murder, 2 days earlier they had their annual open house. On that morning someone there called 911. When the police arrived they decided it was Jon Benet. Why? She had DNR under her fingernails from someone outside the family. They also spent Christmas out delivering presents, and seeing the Whites. The DNA could have been gathered then. The kids play and she gets poked with the toy. The first thing she will do is reach back to assess the injury. If it is bleeding, she will now have her own blood on her fingertips, and she will go to the bathroom to treat the wound. This could very well be the way the DNA was transfered from her fingertips to the panties. Also it was on the sweat pants binding, again, which could have been through transfer from her putting them on. Jon does present with a lot of the after-event behaviors of a Power Assertive personality. He also seems to distance himself from JBR. In all the times I have heard him talk of JBR he always refers to her as "jon Benet" or "the girl" or recently "the 6 year old girl". Most dads of little girls have pet names for them like "sweety, or princess, or whatever". He never uses any of those to refer to her. He is emotionally distancing himself from her. The causes could be his guilt in his role in this travesty. He seems too, to present with some Narcisistic traits. One thing seems to be relevant and that is the family was not what it pretended to be to the public.

Thanks for your very thoughtful comments. Almost all are addressed in this blog, so for my answers I suggest you browse through the Blog Archive on the right border to find the relevant topics. No question, this is an extremely confusing, mysterious case -- at least on the surface. If we try to account for every single thing that might look suspicious, or every single possible motive someone might have had, we wind up in a hopeless labyrinth. Which is why I take little stock in such issues as why Patsy was dressed in the same outfit or why John and Patsy were apparently avoiding each other, etc. They've been debated for years and have gotten us nowhere. Same with all the issues surrounding Burke, which tell us nothing in the long run. If you read much here you'll see I like to concentrate on the basics, which as I see it, all point in one direction.

Well, the behavior of John after the murder until now is very indicative of involvement. A killer, such as the one who murdered JBR, will often find almost cathartic relief after the deed. They tend to use the event as a springboard to re-make their life. He left Boulder, sold the business, moved to Michigan, after Patsy's death he remarried, remodeled his house, ran for political office, and most telling of all, he seems to be continually insinuating himself into the investigation. To be honest, I still have trouble with the question of, if John did it, why didn't Patsy turn him in, or vice versa. I don't know about you, but if my wife had killed one of our children, I sure wouldn't be helping her get away with it, and knowing my wife, she would say the same about me. It's not like she was the love of his life or he hers. She was his 3rd wife.There were some strange things going on in that house.

If Patsy knew John killed the child who was the apple of her eye, no question she'd have turned him in. But assuming I'm right, and John is the one who killed her, then I see no reason whatsoever for him to share that information with his wife. Shortly after the discovery of the body, Patsy was placed under heavy sedation and remained under sedation for some time afterward. During that period, handwriting "experts" hired by John's legal team took maybe two or three hours to compare the note to some exemplars of John's writing (provided by John himself, of course) and decided, for reasons that have never been made public, that he could not have written it. A month or so later, additional "experts" hired by the DA's office confirmed their judgement, again for reasons unknown.

With John "ruled out" as writer of the note, any lingering suspicions on Patsy's part would have been allayed. In her mind, an intruder was the ONLY remaining possibility. This situation would have made it very easy for John to manipulate Patsy into accepting his version of what happened. And if she challenged him on any point, he could always remind her that she'd been heavily sedated for some time and might not be able to accurately recall certain things.

I don't know of any mother who would just go the rest of her life, in a murder of this magnitude, who had to know it was one of the three of them that killed her, who wouldn't, sooner or later, confront the truth. A person can only delude themselves for so long. Also, I have a couple of personal experiences here that might add some substance,When I was in the 3rd grade my parents moved us out of the country to an area that was in a housing project. Across from the back of our home there was a family that had a disturbed child. He would have been 11 years old, and one time, while playing hockey on the local pond, he got angry with me that he couldn't get a goal on me. When I went to go home, he came up behind me and hit me with his stick. I was out for 10 minutes. He later at the age of 13 raped one of the girls in the neighborhood, and I can attest to his torture of animals and humans. The idea that a 9 year old could not have done this is physically refutable.About 5 or so years ago, I was leaving my office and I slipped on the ice in the parking lot. I fractured my skull in two places, shattered my face plate, shattered my eye sockets and my brain hemorrhaged. I spent 9 weeks in the hospital. My feet went out from beneath me and I actually died at one point. There was no violence or anger behind it, just a head hitting ice. The human skull can take abuse, but as a child, she would still be experiencing growth of her skull and she would still have kind of a "soft spot" on the top of her skull. There is absolutely no reason that Burke could not have done this. You have stated that you only want to stick to the facts and not engage in conjecture. The idea that John manipulated Patsy is pure conjecture. Also, as someone who has been under sedation for a week, you remember a lot more than a person thinks they will. Every expert that looked at the note on both the Ramsey's side and the DA's side agreed that John had not written the note. I find it hard to believe that they all colluded to keep John out of trouble. We're getting into OJ territory here. Maybe they ruled John out, simply because he didn't do it.At a given point after JBR's birth, one of Patsy's friends or relatives gave her 3 books, all dealing with raising a troubled child. Antisocial behavior in children presents with passive aggressive actions. In Burke's case there were at least 3 different episodes of him smearing his feces on walls, and on a box of chocolates, etc. In addition, several of the people that were interacting with the family prior to the murder, reported that Burke was a very disturbed child. There is also the tape of the 911 call and Burke in the background. They tell him to go to bed, and when the police ask about him they say he is sleeping, and has yet to wake up. They lied to protect their child. In this case, it was just about interviewing. What would they be willing to do to protect him from murder? When we look at the Ramsey family in pics and videos, John is almost non-existent. All of the pics of the family were just of Patsy, Burke, and Jon Benet. That is incredibly telling. John was a outsider with his own family.

Many people see this case in the light of their own personal experiences. Many who had problems with their mothers are convinced Patsy killed her daughter. Why? Because Patsy reminds them of their mother. Those who were abused by their father tend to suspect John. Your experiences with a disturbed boy seem to have convinced you that Burke did it.

The case is far more difficult than that. There is in fact NO direct evidence clearly implicating any of the three who were in the house with JonBenet that night. And no matter where we try to go we encounter obstacles. Which is why I chose to concentrate on what we actually know about this case, rather than whether or not a certain person COULD have done it, or might have been inclined to do it, or what this or that person's opinion might be, no matter how "authoritative" or "expert," or what one of the suspects has assured us happened or did not happen that night.

What we know tells us 1. that an intruder can safely be ruled out; 2. that the 911 call is inconsistent with the contents of the "ransom" note, and would thus not have been made when it was if both John and Patsy were collaborating in a coverup; 3. Patsy, not John, is the one who made that call.

We also know that Patsy has provided two completely different versions of what happened immediately prior to the call: in one version the call was John's idea, but in the other it was her idea. So clearly she lied. And we have no choice but to ask: why? If they were collaborating they'd have gotten their story straight and stuck with it. If Patsy is guilty and John innocent, then Patsy would not have made the call. So as I see it we have no choice but to conclude that John is our perp and managed to manipulate Patsy into corroborating his version of what happened. When we add to that the fact that Patsy was heavily sedated beginning with the day the body was found, it's not difficult to see how John could have convinced her that her memories of what happened that morning were unreliable. Whether or no you or anyone else can recall what happened while you were under sedation tells us nothing about Patsy's mental state during that period. If she was in fact innocent, as I'm sure she was, then clearly she'd have been confused and vulnerable.

First, thank you for your thought-provoking blog. Reading all the postings here as carefully as I can, I find myself in disagreement with your conclusion. I do not see an inconsistency between the collusion of PR and JR and the 911 call made by PR. Disposal of a body is always problematic and I believe they convinced themselves that when the body would be inevitably discovered their kidnap staging would still hold, however misguided that might be. Remember they have a dead child and logic probably went out of that broken window. The RN is a case in point. Whichever one wrote it, and it reads like PR, did they really think anyone would buy the fact that a kidnapper would assume they had some writing paper and pen ready so he could spend time composing such a tome after breaking in? No. I do think that PR's state of dress and make-up is significant and points to a night without sleep. We may never know the truth but for me, a cover up staging for BR seems the most likely explanation.

I appreciate very much your close reading of this blog, so thank you. And no, it's not necessary for everyone reading here to agree with me -- you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But when I read what so many following this case have had to say about Patsy's involvement, I get a strange feeling of vertigo, as though I'm peering through Alice's famous Looking Glass through the wrong end of a telescope.

As I see it, the decision to rule John out threw everyone for a loop and forced the authorities to take even the most bizarre theories seriously. And over the years, some of these very bizarre theories have been taken as a kind of "new normal," while the single most logical explanation is hardly ever even considered.

Ask yourself: if for some reason a parent murders his or her child, what is the likelihood that this parent is going to want to share knowledge of such guilt with their spouse? No one following this case has ever even suggested that John and Patsy plotted together to kill JonBenet. But so many, including yourself, have no problem assuming that if Patsy killed her that she'd want to share that fact with her husband, and that he in turn would be willing to risk the electric chair to assist her in covering it up.

It seems reasonable to me that if one of them killed her the last thing that person would want would be for his or her spouse to know the truth. But because of the strange course this case has taken, the great majority following the case have no problem at all with that idea. (And by the way, if was "only an accident," then there would have been no need for an elaborately staged coverup, since an accident is an accident, and can be reported as such.)

The murder and the sexual assault are clearly related, so if we are looking for a motive, then obviously the most likely motive is a perceived need on the part of the assaulter to silence the victim. And of the three survivors in the house that night, John Ramsey is clearly the most likely one to have committed that assault. And if he's the guilty party, then I see no reason to assume he would have wanted to confess what he had done to Patsy, for whom JonBenet was clearly the most important thing in her life. Nor do I see any reason for Patsy to want to help him stage a kidnapping by sitting down to write a phoney "ransom note". To me that makes no sense at all, but to a great many it seems the only possible explanation.

Why? Because no other explanation seems consistent with the decision to rule John out as writer of the note. Rule him back in again and all becomes crystal clear. If you've been reading here then I suggest you reread what I've written about the inept attempts of Darnay Hoffman's "experts" to pin the tail on Patsy. And you might want also to read my recent posts debunking the commonly held notion that her left hand sample or her London Letter are dead ringers for the note -- they are not, not even close. I see no reason whatsoever to implicate Patsy in this crime and all sorts of reasons to conclude that John and John only murdered his daughter, wrote the note, and staged all other aspects of the coverup.

Please read Chapter 18 in the 2006 Michelle Dresbold book,"Sex, Lies,and Handwriting" The title of the Chapter is "Who wrote the JonBenet Ramsey Ransom note". she has the most elitecredentials: a graduate of the Secret Service Advanced Document Traing program. read the one chapter and decide for yourself.Glad to be of help to all of you Truth-Seekers. thanks, dan

As I understand it, Dresbold's work on the Ramsey case is based on the comparisons put together by Cina Wong, who in fact has sued her for plagiarism. Since I've already spent a good deal of time reviewing Wong's comparisons and her analysis, I see no reason to bother with Dresbold's rehash. If you've found anything in her book that goes beyond Wong, or any of the other "experts" whose work I've gone over, by all means share.

Hi Doc and thanks for an insightful theory. But I disagree with your basic premise. I believe that the author/co-author of the note and the 911 caller almost had to be one in the same. Disregarding multiple references to "don't call the police", they (PR, with JR's knowledge) immediately call the police, 3 different friends and a priest. It would later explain away why the kidnapper never called.

Maybe the R's expected a trusted (or participating) 3rd party to remove the body overnight via the broken window.

If you really need an explanation for why the kidnapper never called, the best "explanation" would be not to stage a kidnapping in the first place, no? If there were no note at all there would be no need to explain the lack of a call.

Bottom line: why go to all the trouble to stage a kidnapping by writing a note, and then completely undermine the note by calling the cops?

And by the way, the "kidnapper's" call was to come "tomorrow," after John had collected the ransom and had an opportunity to "rest." So there would have been no need to explain the absence of a call that morning.

So why does JR stage the kidnapping in the first place? Assuming he's the sole killer with everyone else asleep, why doesn't he just take the body out of the house and dump it somewhere? Why leave a note written in his own handwriting? All he would need to do is claim that one of the doors was unlocked that night and JBR was missing in the morning. If it's purely JR, there's no need for any of the staging whatsoever.

Why doesn't JR just dump the body that night, before the others wake up? That would be hugely risky. For one thing, a neighbor might hear his car pulling out of the garage. For another, if he or his car were spotted anywhere that night he'd have had no explanation and his guilt would have been obvious. If his tire tracks had been spotted in the vicinity of where the body was dumped, he'd have been toast. Also, the sound of the garage door opening, or the car being started might have awakened Patsy or Burke. If Patsy were to wake up in the middle of the night and notice that both JonBenet and JR were missing, she'd have called 911 and he'd have been toast. (If she'd awakened while he was still in the house, on the other hand, he would certainly have murdered her as well. But obviously that wasn't necessary, because she never got up.)

The note gave him the perfect excuse to dump the body later the next day, or the following night. If he'd been spotted, he could easily have claimed he was only delivering the ransom. The many warnings about calling the police are obviously there for a reason. But Patsy called them anyhow, spoiling his plan.

Still doesn't make sense. It's a big risk that A) his wife will not recognize his handwriting, and B) that she agrees to not call the police. Most parents WOULD, so how could he convince her otherwise? It has been noted officially that JR TOLD PR to call the police. ("5:52 AM Patsy Ramsey Made 911 Call. John told Patsy to call police; 911 call logged at 5:52 AM (Schiller 1999a:78). The Daily Camera places this call at 5:45 AM, as does Bardach (1997).") Why would he ruin his own plan this way?

Also, how could he guarantee that PR doesn't immediately search every room of the house and find JBR early? How does he expect to get the body from the basement to his car to deliver the ransom without PR noticing? If he could, why does't he do that prior to her finding the note? And if so, again why leave the note at all then? As you yourself pointed out, why write a ransom note in your own hand and thus give the police an incriminating piece of evidence? Regardless of whether they called the police initially, he would eventually have to turn over the RN at some point. Far more kids go missing/are taken without ransom notes. It complicates things greatly and ensures a larger police/FBI presence. Things he would DEFINITELY want to avoid.

In reality, he could have hidden the body as he did and dumped it at a later point under the cover of going out to canvass the area for JBR. The whole 'note gives him an excuse to leave the house' angle is far too much risk for something he could have done many other ways. It literally makes the situation 100x worse by adding so many variables on how PR, friends, the police, the FBI and everyone involved would react.

Ok, good, you've been thinking this through in a very reasonable manner, and your objections are well taken. So let's assume everything you've said can be accurately and meaningfully applied to this case. Which leaves us where?

Since your thinking can be applied just as easily to a situation where John and Patsy are both in on it together, then the presumption would be that both must be innocent. And since Burke clearly didn't write the note, that means an intruder must have been present after all.

But then we have to ask ourselves what reason that intruder would have had to enter the house of his victim without a note prepared in advance. And printed, so his handwriting couldn't give him away. Why he'd decide only at the last minute to hand print that long note while on the premises. Why he'd decide not to take his victim (or her body) with him after all? And why he'd have been so foolish as to leave his hand printed note behind for no reason, since his victim hadn't actually been kidnapped. How he could have entered and left leaving no sign of forced entry. Why he'd have bothered to lock the door behind him if he'd left via a door. Why he'd have strewn packing peanuts from the window well onto the basement floor. Why he'd have moved a suitcase flush against the wall beneath that window. Why he'd have opened that window but never actually passed through it. Etc.

Well, I'm sorry, but something has to give. Something there is about this case that doesn't add up. And as I see it, the problem is that typically what people do in attempting to think about this case is make unwarranted assumptions regarding both the evidence and what it might mean.

Which is why I decided to backtrack and consider ONLY the evidence we know for sure to be the case. So. For all the reasons given above and others I've presented elsewhere, it seems clear we can safely rule out an intruder. Do you agree, or is there something I might have missed? If there was no intruder than the note could only have been written by John or Patsy. Which tells us either that one of them did it on his or her own, or both were in on it together. We also know that it was Patsy who called the police. And we know that by calling the police she nullified the effect of the note. Thus if she is the one who wrote it, she'd have been destroying her own plan. Which leaves John and only John as the sole note writer, working on his own.

Once we see the logic of the above then all other evidence must be considered in the light of that logic, no matter how unreasonable John's actions might seem. And in fact, upon analysis, we learn that they were not unreasonable at all, but part of a very clever plan.

The problem with your thinking on this case is that it depends too much on assumptions, which it treats as facts. More in my next comment, below:

Your first assumption: most parents would call the police regardless of the threats in the note. Well, obviously you have no way of knowing that. And what most parents would do is irrelevant. What's important is what John might have thought Patsy would do. We also have to realize that if John wrote the note, his options would have been very limited, so he may have been hoping Patsy would be too frightened to call regardless of what "most parents" would do.

Your next assumption is that John told Patsy to call 911. We have absolutely no way of knowing that for sure, and in fact Patsy provided a very different version of that story in the A&E documentary. See the following blog post for details.

Your next assumption is that John's plan would have to have been perfect. No so. He would clearly have been in a desperate state, with very limited options, so hoping for the best but clearly not capable of controlling every detail. Sure, Patsy could have turned the house upside down looking for JonBenet. But in fact she didn't. It's not difficult to see why, because the note tells us she's been kidnapped, so why bother to search? For me this is one of the reasons for the note, to discourage Patsy from searching the house.

You are also assuming John would not have had a plan to go along with his note, but I see the plan very clearly. It would certainly have involved getting both Patsy and Burke out of the house, having them stay with friends "for their own safety," but actually so he'd be in a position to get the body out of the basement and into the trunk of his car. It would also involve destroying the note, claiming that the kidnappers insisted on it being returned -- why not, since their handwriting was on it?

To solve this case you first of all have to stick only with the facts to figure out that John was the only one who could have committed this crime. Following that, you have to use your imagination to see how he planned the staging and why he could have felt confident he'd get away with it, if all went according to that plan. And we also have to be able to see where the plan went wrong, and how he was able to nevertheless sow enough confusion to throw everyone off the scent.

I agree that it was not an intruder. I don't believe BR wrote the note, so that only leaves JR and PR. I believe PR wrote the note.

It is an assumption to believe you know what the intention of the note was, therefore you cannot state calling the police as definitive proof someone didn't write it. How are you so positive of what the “plan” really was? The nullification defense would make some sense if you believe the note is legitimate, but you do not believe it to be, so the actual rational for the note is unclear. Perhaps the note functioned exactly as it was supposed to? You are assuming you know what it is for, but no one except the killer(s) really know.

An important note: The case cannot be solved on facts alone. If it could, it would have been, but it just doesn't happen like that in reality. Most cases are not solved on pure evidence and facts, unless they are caught on camera. This is why reasonable doubt is such a big deal. There is always an element of assumption, likelihood and probability involved.

I agree, I do make some assumptions, but seeing as I was not in the house that night and morning, it is all that I have to go on. You make a lot of assumptions too. How do you know that he was hoping PR would be too frightened to call the police? THAT is an assumption.

It has been noted that PR said that JR told her to call the police. You assume this is a lie, but what is your proof that this specific claim is false? If it is, why would she lie about that? Wouldn't that indicate that she is possibly complicit in the crime as well?

I believe that JR would want to maximize his chances at success and minimize his risk at getting caught. I'm not assuming that he would devise a perfect plan, only be very careful and not do anymore than was required to hide any potential crime. I think this is a fair assumption, but you are entirely within your rights to believe otherwise.

Again, you make an assumption yourself here that PR would be discouraged from searching the home based on finding the note. How do you know this to be true? You don't. Just like I assume she would, you assume she wouldn't. These are beliefs, not facts. I maintain that most people would still conduct a thorough search of the premises and not just stop looking. This is based on the likely behavior of a reasonable person. You're right, it is an assumption though, but in my opinion a realistic one. How could they be certain this wasn't a prank or she wasn't injured in some part of the home?

You make several large assumptions about JR's “plan” and his future actions (body transfer/disposal/RN destruction/etc.) What are the FACTS to back these up with? This seems extrapolated from your theories about the ransom note, but there is no proof of any of it.

Without a confession, or indisputable DNA evidence, there can only be assumptions and theories. Some more believable than others.

You are confusing two very different aspects of my interpretation of this case. First, we must rely on the facts to figure out who wrote the note. Fact: there was no intruder -- we agree on that point. Fact: Patsy is the one who called 911, NOT John. That is a fact. And as I see it the above facts tell us that only John could be the writer of the note.

The notion that the person who wrote the note could have wanted to call the police knowing the body was still in the house simply makes no sense. Thus my insistence on Patsy's innocence is not an assumption, it is a very clear logical inference. And if Patsy and John were in it together, as you seem to believe, then the call also makes no sense. Again this is logic, NOT an assumption. While it's true that anything is possible, so they might have had some reason to make that call at that time regardless, I'm sorry but if you read the note you'll see there was no reason for them to make that call at that time. And the note itself gives them a very good reason to wait until they are able to get the body out of the house first before calling the police.

As far as John telling Patsy to make the call and her going along with that story, as you say we don't have the facts on that one, so we are forced to use our imagination. However, if we realize that the two of them collaborating makes no sense (for reasons explained above) then John telling Patsy to make the call also makes no sense. Unless you want to argue that she did it all on her own, and John was an innocent dupe. But that also makes no sense and if you read more in this blog you'll see why.

It's important to separate out two very different aspects of my interpretation of the case. First the need to stick only with the facts, and logical inferences based on those facts, in order to finger John. Then it's necessary to try to piece together all the other aspects of the case to make them fit. And since we lack many of the facts to do that then we are forced to use our imagination, to put ourselves in the head of the criminal in order to understand why he would have done what we know he did (based on the facts). This does not involve assumptions, but it does involve a certain amount of speculation, which I have tried to do as carefully as I can, basing my speculations on what seems most likely and most logical. And some of that could turn out to be mistaken, sure.

But John is the guilty party on his own, no question. Of that there can be no doubt. As far as certain things Patsy said to support John's version of what happened, it looks to me as though he manipulated her. And if you root around enough in this blog you'll learn my reasons for believing that.

As far as the police figuring out who dunnit, actually they did, and right from the start. John was the only suspect, at first, and for very good reason. The case fell apart, however, when the "handwriting experts" ruled him out. This error is the reason why we are still haunted by this case to this day and nothing seems to make sense. Rule him back in and it all makes perfect sense.

I respectfully disagree. First off logical inferences/speculation are assumptions. The definition of speculation: “Reasoning based on INCONCLUSIVE evidence”. Inference: “The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or ASSUMED to be true.”

“Fact: There was no intruder.” This is NOT a fact. You and I might believe that there is no way there was an intruder, but that does not make it an indisputable fact. The BPD was/is still split on this issue.

It IS a fact that PR called 911. There is a log and audio record and thus proof.

“The notion that the person who wrote the note could have wanted to call the police knowing the body was still in the house simply makes no sense.”

It doesn't make sense TO YOU, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to the killer(s). Without intimate knowledge of why the note was written, you simply cannot argue one way or the other about whether following the instructions makes you innocent or guilty.

I understand that this is your basic premise and I just don't agree with it. You have locked yourself into believing that killer(s) would never want the body found in the house and infer information based on this. This is wrong. It may seem reasonable to you, but that doesn't make it true. It's a leap without supporting evidence.

I believe the reason the phone call was made when PR & JR woke up is because when else do you report your child missing if not when you first check on them in the morning? It would have appeared odd if they called 911 later in the afternoon. They would have had to lie about her whereabouts all morning and BR could always state that he never saw her. However, stating that you put her to sleep and she was gone when you woke up gives both JR and PR an alibi. They were asleep.

Disobeying the note immediately and calling 911 also serves as an alibi. There is no period of time that is unaccounted for spent “negotiating” with the “kidnappers”. If things went wrong, the police could always argue that that span of time was used to commit the crime. Instead however, the 'loving and caring' parents immediately did what the police considers your best option – contacting them. From the moment they “discovered” her missing until the moment she was “discovered”, PR & JR are with the police. The note did it's job by keep JBR “alive” and “kidnapped” until the discovery. Doesn't that seem like a perfect alibi to you? Just my opinion.

“It's important to separate out two very different aspects of my interpretation of the case. First the need to stick only with the facts, and logical inferences based on those facts, in order to finger John.” The problem is JR isn't the only one you can incriminate. One can also make a case for it being PR & JR or BR with PR & JR covering it up. YOU may not buy into those theories, but that doesn't mean that they are patently false or outside the realm of possibility.

You can't have it both ways: You criticize other theories for assumptions, but then admit to a “...certain amount of speculation ... basing my speculations on what seems most likely and most logical.” What makes your guesses any more valid than anyone else's?

“But John is the guilty party on his own, no question. Of that there can be no doubt.” Of course there is doubt about this. The fact we are having a civil debate about it PROVES that there is doubt. The fact that he's free and not in jail is also a strong indicator. If there is no smoking gun, there is ALWAYS some doubt. The reason we have trials is to determine whether or not that doubt is reasonable.

JR was a main suspect because the family members are always main suspects. PR was never eliminated by experts from writing the note. If you're looking to base your theory on solid evidence, you have to take that into account. If you do, you have to conclude that she is also a suspect (An innocent person could not have written the ransom note; only someone complicit). Follow the *solid* evidence.

OK, again good. This is an interesting discussion and you are challenging me in a manner I respect. Doesn't mean I'm wrong though. :-)

"First off logical inferences/speculation are assumptions." Once again you are confusing two very different aspects of my take on this case. Logical inferences are not assumptions. Neither are speculations, by the way. There is a difference between an assumption, which is based only on what seems reasonable, and a speculation based on evidence. For example, Kolar assumes Burke could have been sexually active, based on case studies he's read, but there is in fact no evidence whatsoever that Burke was in fact sexually active. Similarly you are assuming Patsy wrote the note, which is again based on no real evidence, only the opinions of those "experts" who say she wrote it. The fact that other "experts" have expressed serious doubts on that score doesn't register with you. I see no real evidence she wrote it, nor is there any other reason to suspect her.

“Fact: There was no intruder.” This is NOT a fact." It's a logical inference based on the facts. Not only is there no intruder evidence, there is evidence pointing away from an intruder, and also no reason for any intruder to have done what was done. I should have been more clear on that, because strictly speaking you are right, it's not really a fact, but for me a logical conclusion based on clear evidence is as good as a fact. And sure, anything is possible, but if we accept that line of "reasoning" then every criminal could get off. All he'd need to do is spin some improbable tale that can't be verified. It's the old "dog ate my homework" defense and it rarely works.

"It doesn't make sense TO YOU, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to the killer(s). Without intimate knowledge of why the note was written, you simply cannot argue one way or the other about whether following the instructions makes you innocent or guilty."

Let's put it another way. Someone wrote that note and took some time over it, so he or she must have had a reason for doing so. If this is an inside job, as we both agree it was, I can see only one reason: to stage a kidnapping. So if the same people responsible for writing that note call the police first thing in the morning, then the writing of the note makes no sense, because once the police are on the scene there is no longer any safe way to remove the body, and with the body found in the house there was clearly no kidnapping. Moreover, if Patsy wrote the note, as you assume, then she not only undermined her kidnap staging, she also handed the police incriminating evidence against herself. Why on Earth would she do that? If they had changed their minds about the original plan, then they would not have said anything about any note and simply reported a home invasion and murder.

This is most certainly not just my opinion. It's simple logic, actually simple common sense. No one has ever been able to suggest any motive for writing the note other than the staging of a kidnapping. Even Ramsey supporters can't explain it any other way. Again, anything is possible so I suppose you can argue Patsy wrote the note as some sort of message to John, or because she wanted to show off her journalism skills, but sorry, none of that will wash and you know it.

"You have locked yourself into believing that killer(s) would never want the body found in the house" It's more than that. The body being found in the house negates the staging so clearly evident in the note. It's a logical contradiction to assume that they would write such a note and ALSO want the body to be found in the house. It's also a logical contradiction that Patsy would intentionally write a deceptive note and then hand the police all the evidence they'd need to reveal the deception.

"I believe the reason the phone call was made when PR & JR woke up is because when else do you report your child missing if not when you first check on them in the morning? It would have appeared odd if they called 911 later in the afternoon." That's why the note was written, to give the killer a reason not to call first thing in the morning. What other reason could there have been? Again, this is not just my opinion, because it makes no sense for them to both stage a phoney kidnapping and then invite the police in so they can discover there was no kidnapping after all.

"However, stating that you put her to sleep and she was gone when you woke up gives both JR and PR an alibi. They were asleep." Sorry, but that's not much of an alibi.

"The note did it's job by keep JBR “alive” and “kidnapped” until the discovery. Doesn't that seem like a perfect alibi to you?" It might have worked, but only if the body had never been discovered. But how could they possibly have prevented the police from discovering it? Once the body is discovered, then the note immediately looks suspicious. Which is why the authorities immediately suspected John. If he hadn't been "ruled out" he would certainly have been prosecuted, and no doubt convicted. THAT's his "alibi" -- he could not have written the note. Perfect!

We must also consider the whereabouts of the body. If they were in it together, and wanted the body found by the police, then why on Earth would they have hidden it in the most remote place in the house? That too looked extremely suspicious. The only reason I can see for hiding it is that the killer didn't want Patsy to find it before he'd had a chance to get her out of the house so he could complete his plan.

"You can't have it both ways: You criticize other theories for assumptions, but then admit to a “...certain amount of speculation ... basing my speculations on what seems most likely and most logical.” What makes your guesses any more valid than anyone else's?" Once the logic of the case tells us that John and only John is the guilty party, then we have no choice but to speculate regarding what he might have been thinking, and why he would have wanted to write that note. Because there is no way he's ever going to explain it himself. But a speculation is not a guess. Everything I've written is based on evidence. Some of the details in my speculations might be wrong, but they are better than anyone else's because they provide logical explanations for a great many aspects of this case that no one else has been able to explain. Such as the note itself, for one thing.

"The fact that he's free and not in jail is also a strong indicator. If there is no smoking gun, there is ALWAYS some doubt." He's not in jail for only one reason: he was ruled out as write of the note, a HUGE mistake. And there is a smoking gun. You need to read what I've written about John's testimony regarding the broken window in the basement.

"Follow the *solid* evidence." There is no evidence implicating Patsy. There was no motive for her to kill her daughter. There was no motive for her to sexually abuse her daughter, nor any motive for her to garotte her daughter. And there was certainly no motive for her to write that note and then call the police on herself, handing a patently phoney "ransom note" in her own hand to the police.

The only reason Patsy was ever under suspicion is because John was ruled out and she wasn't. And, as I've demonstrated on this blog, in several different place, that was a huge mistake.

The fact that you refuse to even admit that inferences and speculation are indeed guesses is troublesome at best.

"... a logical conclusion based on clear evidence is as good as a fact."

Sorry, but this is dangerous thinking and just not true. Innocent people are thrown in jail and executed based on reasoning like this.

It is extremely important to understand that a fact is a fact, and assumptions are assumptions. No matter how reasonable or 'logical' you believe your assumptions are, it is never a fact until it is. Calling it a 'logically derived inference' or whatever, is just window dressing. It's still a best guess with the possibility of being incorrect (read: doubt).

In regards to the ransom note, I have offered one potential theory as to its “function”. You can choose to dismiss this theory, but that doesn't mean it's right or wrong. No one knows who wrote it. It could have been a family member, it could have been an intruder. Any guess as to its intended “function” can never be considered a fact. Nor can one extrapolate new “facts” based on their BELIEF of the note's intended “function”.

The evidence says that JR was excluded as an author; PR was not. You can either choose to believe the experts and accept this as evidence, or not. It is your right to form your own opinion, but realize that it is just that "an opinion". It is mine that PR probably wrote the note, but I would NEVER state it as a fact until it was unequivocally proven as such.

I understand that we both have our own theories on the case, but part of being a good investigator is learning to be impartial and keeping an open mind on the evidence and where it leads.

JR has NOT been proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt based on the facts of the case. Neither has PR or BR. Conversely, they also haven't been found innocent based on the facts -- even with the DNA "clearing" and retraction. An intruder theory still hasn't been ruled out either, nor has it ever been fully proven.

Any theory that purports to say otherwise about these issues is just that, a theory. An assumption based on the evidence available, however NOT a fact, or strong enough evidence to close a case.

I must say I've enjoyed our discussion, however it is clear to me at this stage that you are firmly entrenched in your own conclusions and unwilling to question them or look at the case from a different perspective.

I'm not saying that your conclusions are wrong (How could I?), but that doesn't mean they are RIGHT either. I do hope that eventually you take a second look at all the logically inferred "facts" you have made and question whether you can truly draw absolute conclusions based on them. If you're honest with yourself, you have to admit that you have the POTENTIAL to be wrong, and alternative theories as to what happened are not entirely unreasonable.

Therefore, doubt exists and thus I believe JR couldn't be convicted solely based the facts and your logical inferences. Case not solved.

"Sorry, but this is dangerous thinking and just not true. Innocent people are thrown in jail and executed based on reasoning like this."

The positions of the planets at any given time are facts. The realization, based on these facts, that the Earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa, is not a fact. It is a logical inference based on the facts. And since the facts are not in doubt and the reasoning is solid, then the conclusion is as good as a fact and is universally accepted as such. That is not dangerous thinking, it is basic science. Of course one could still argue that the Ptolemaic epicycles account just as well for the same facts, and that's certainly true, or at least was true in Kepler's day. But given all the evidence, the Ptolemaic picture makes no sense, while the Keplerian picture does. Kepler applied sound logic to the facts and came up with the truth.

That was what I had in mind when I stated that a logical inference is as good as a fact.

What you seem to be referring to is the principle of reasonable doubt. But I insist there is a difference between reasonable doubt and any old doubt anyone could come up with for any reason at all, because "anything is possible." Sorry, but that sort of doubt won't cut it. Sure there's no way of knowing whether some Einstein of the future might find a flaw in the Copernican picture and decide the sun revolves around the Earth after all. We have no way of knowing it for sure, so it's possible. Because as you say, anything is possible.

"In regards to the ransom note, I have offered one potential theory as to its “function”."

Sorry but I missed that. You are saying it wasn't written to stage a phoney kidnapping but for some other reason? Please explain.

"The evidence says that JR was excluded as an author; PR was not."

Not true. Again you are making an assumption. And that's a perfect example of the difference between an assumption and a speculation. An assumption is a subjective reading of the evidence that might seem to be the case but has not in fact been demonstrated, while a speculation is a frankly subjective attempt to understand the evidence by filling in certain gaps. Two very different things. The evidence does not exclude JR. HIs exclusion was based on an opinion offered by "experts" whose methods have never been made public, never explained, yet never questioned. Based on the ASSUMPTION that they have to be right because they are "experts." If you research the problem that such opinions have had in courts of law you'll see that many judges refuse to accept such opinions in court, because there is in fact no real science behind questioned doc. analysis. And if John is ever tried, the judge might well toss out those "expert" opinions as well and for the same reason -- not science.

"JR has NOT been proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt based on the facts of the case."

No one is ever proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. Because there will always be some degree of doubt in any case. The operant condition is: "reasonable doubt." Nothing about the case makes sense if we try to argue that an intruder did it, or Patsy did it or Burke did it. It makes sense only if John did it on his own. That, as I see it, takes us beyond reasonable doubt. Which is why I'm convinced of his guilt. (There are many other reasons as well, as presented in this blog.)If John is ever put on trial, he'll have an opportunity to respond to the charges and possibly something will be brought to light that might tend to exonerate him. I can't rule that out. But as things now stand, he is, in my view, guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm already there. And always was. Obviously my conclusion reflects my view of the case. And obviously someone else may well have a different view. But I must also insist: my view is the correct one. :-)

You are at your best when stressing all the uncertainties in this case and for sure there is much we don't know and may never know. I have no problem admitting that. You are weakest, however, in attempting to defend the (admittedly very popular) notion that Patsy "must be" the one who wrote the note. I've emphasized the 911 call because that's such an incontrovertible fact. But there are many other reasons to doubt Patsy's involvement.

For one thing, what possible motive could she have had to kill a child she obviously doted on? An accident could easily have been reported as such, even if it involved a blow to head, since it could have been reported as a fall. And if she was covering for her husband -- why would she want to do that?

Also, penetrating her daughter's vagina, and then strangling her with a garotte seems like absurd overkill. Nothing in Patsy's past suggests she was psychotic, so how does she morph from social butterfly/housewife to a character from grand guignol? Even if we assume she was covering for Burke, it still seems seriously out of character.

What could have been on her mind when she wrote that note? If the intent wasn't to use it as an excuse to dump the body before calling the police, then what purpose would it have served? And if that was her intent, then why call the police while the body was still in the house?

What purpose was there in hiding the body in that tiny out of the way room? Why not display it, if you are staging a sexual attack by a homicidal maniac?

Why would Patsy have wanted to redress JonBenet in those oversized bloomies? Why not leave the body as is? If John killed her, and his semen got spilled on her panties, then that would certainly be a motive for him to change her. But what possible motive could Patsy have had?

Also the body was thoroughly wiped down? Why would Patsy have need to do that?

As I've said, Patsy's involvement simply makes no sense, no matter which way you look at it. The only reason she was ever a suspect was because she wasn't ruled out and John was. Yet if you carefully examine her handwriting, as I have done, the overall style is totally different from that of the note. It's only when you go fishing for details that seem similar, and ignore all the ones that are different, is it possible to create the illusion that she wrote it. Many people have been convinced by isolated comparisons that are clearly the result of cherry picking and if you study the reports of the various "experts," as I have, you'll see how unconvincing it all is.

“You are weakest, however, in attempting to defend the (admittedly very popular) notion that Patsy "must be" the one who wrote the note.”

I never said Patsy “must be” the one who wrote the note. I said, I BELIEVE she is the one who wrote the note. The handwriting evidence and analysis' are not conclusive, but based on what I have reviewed, it is my BELIEF that she wrote it.

“For one thing, what possible motive could she have had to kill a child she obviously doted on? And if she was covering for her husband -- why would she want to do that? “

I am not familiar with their entire family history, so any motive I give you is speculation, but that doesn't mean there COULDN'T have been one.

Bed-wetting frustration has been cited as a possible one. An accident maybe? Loving parents sometimes just snap in a moment of frustration. Why cover – perhaps JR threatened to kill her? She's alone at home with a killer and he forces her to write the note Perhaps he knew a dirty secret and was blackmailing her? Or perhaps it was BR who molested and/or killed her daughter and the thought of going to the police and ruining BR's life/their family reputation was terrifying to her? They were pillars in the community, don't think that it wouldn't have been a big scandal. All reasonable possibilities.

“Nothing in Patsy's past suggests she was psychotic, so how does she morph from social butterfly/housewife to a character from grand guignol?”

Who says this was the work of a "psychotic"? Maybe it was an accident and staged to appear differently. Who says Patsy specifically did this? BR or JR could have. PR could have been involved just in the cover-up stage.

“What could have been on her mind when she wrote that note? If the intent wasn't to use it as an excuse to dump the body before calling the police, then what purpose would it have served?”

Perhaps the note was written so that when PR & JR call the police they are not reporting an accident or murder, but a kidnapping. A kidnapping means that JBR (at least in the eyes of the police) is still ALIVE. It carries none of the scandal/shame of an accident or intentional murder, JBR was kidnapped and then murdered. Once the body is found, the story suddenly becomes poor PR & JR.

“What purpose was there in hiding the body in that tiny out of the way room? Why not display it, if you are staging a sexual attack by a homicidal maniac?”

You hide because you (JR or PR) have to be the one to find it and get your fibers/DNA on it. Perhaps the culprit behind the sexual attack was hoping that any DNA was properly washed off and didn't realize that prior sex assaults would be discovered.

You seem to be focused on, if it was PR, then she did it alone. If you believe she is working to cover up for BR or alongside JR, then a lot of your issues with the theory are invalidated.

“The only reason she was ever a suspect was because she wasn't ruled out and John was.”

She was in the house the night of the murder, she was and will ALWAYS be a suspect. JR was might have been excluded based on handwriting, but he was never ruled out of being a suspect. Unless you were there, you can never claim that she was not involved.

"Perhaps the note was written so that when PR & JR call the police they are not reporting an accident or murder, but a kidnapping. A kidnapping means that JBR (at least in the eyes of the police) is still ALIVE. It carries none of the scandal/shame of an accident or intentional murder, JBR was kidnapped and then murdered. Once the body is found, the story suddenly becomes poor PR & JR."

I'm sorry but I can't make any sense whatever out of the above paragraph. The "scandal/shame of an accident"? What does that mean? What do you mean by "intentional murder"? Intended by whom? And once the body is found, the story suddenly becomes PR and JR, prime suspects. Because the combination of patently phoney ransom note and body in house looks very much like staging. And in fact that's how the authorities saw it from the start and that's how the grand jury saw it. That's in fact how you yourself see it. So how is it "poor PR & JR"?

"You hide because you (JR or PR) have to be the one to find it and get your fibers/DNA on it." If they are staging a crime by an intruder, why would they want THEIR fibres or DNA found on the body? And we'd expect to find their fibers on it anyhow, since they were her parents and were in close contact with her prior to the murder.

"Unless you were there, you can never claim that she was not involved." Now that's just plain silly. You're saying that every prosecutor in every murder case has to have been present at the murder to accuse the defendant of the crime? That the jury has to have been present to convict?

Looks to me like you're grasping at straws. But that's just me. Since anything is possible, maybe you are actually grasping at goldfish.

“Yet if you carefully examine her handwriting, as I have done, the overall style is totally different from that of the note.”

Unless I am mistaken, you are not a handwriting expert. I would trust them, before I believe you. BPD says she can't be ruled out as the author. That is not conclusive, but it's not good either. Based on the note, the PR samples available and expert opinion, it is mine, and many others' belief, that she is the author of the RN. I am not a handwriting expert either, but that's just my opinion.

I understand that you have a theory, one which you believe is reasonable, and anything else is unreasonable (again, to YOU). But, realize that others have different levels of doubt and what seems reasonable. If you were in the jury, you would have to reach a consensus with other people. Some may share your views, however others may not. The result? A hung jury.

With the evidence available, could a jury find JR guilty without a reasonable doubt? Anything's possible, but I'm inclined to believe they wouldn't. Because unless you were there, you could never be 100% sure of PR (or BR's) potential involvement. All JR or PR has to do is start finger pointing (JR says PR did it/was involved; PR says JR did it/was involved) and the case turns into a clusterf*ck. You can never prove the killer beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the triggerman rule wins out.

Reasonable doubts exists, it's just not reasonable to you PERSONALLY. Doesn't mean it won't be to your peers. You would need to find 11 other people willing to believe that it's impossible that PR or BR was involved and I don't think you could.

"Unless I am mistaken, you are not a handwriting expert. I would trust them, before I believe you." What do you mean by "them"? There were "experts" who found it unlikely she wrote the note, there was at least one "expert" who saw no evidence she wrote it. The ONLY "experts" who decided on Patsy were the ones hired by Darnay Hoffman for precisely that purpose. If you take a look at what I've written about them (look for the posts labeled "The Experts See Patsy"), you'll see that the exemplars they had were totally inadequate -- one was written in longhand, the others consisted of just a few isolated words or phrases.

"I am not a handwriting expert either, but that's just my opinion." Exactly. The ONLY thing linking Patsy to the note is based on opinion -- and there are opinions on both sides of the fence.

"Because unless you were there, you could never be 100% sure of PR (or BR's) potential involvement." A jury doesn't need to have been there to reach a verdict. I've laid out my suggestion for how a prosecutor could make a case against John elsewhere on this blog. Look around, you'll find it. I think it's a pretty strong case. Circumstantial, yes. But many criminals have been convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. Often there is no other way to arrive at the truth.

“I'm sorry but I can't make any sense whatever out of the above paragraph. The "scandal/shame of an accident"? What does that mean?”

It means avoiding the scandal/shame of having JBR's death/molestation be the result of someone directly in the family. It is avoided by staging a phony kidnapping. (eg. The kidnapper is the killer/sexual predator, not JR/PR/BR)

“And once the body is found, the story suddenly becomes PR and JR, prime suspects. Because the combination of patently phoney ransom note and body in house looks very much like staging. And in fact that's how the authorities saw it from the start and that's how the grand jury saw it.”

Correction: That's how SOME authorities saw it. Have you ever considered the possibility that the creation of the ransom note was simply to provide a plausible alternative to PR & JR being the killer? It is my belief that it was NEVER meant to fully exonerate them from any wrong doing, but to inject some/any doubt and confusion into the case. Perhaps they realized that it wouldn't convince many people, but as long as it has the potential to raise doubts in some, it does its job.

“If they are staging a crime by an intruder, why would they want THEIR fibres or DNA found on the body? And we'd expect to find their fibers on it anyhow, since they were her parents and were in close contact with her prior to the murder.”

But they wouldn't have been in contact with her during/after the murder. All it takes is for their hairs/ clothing fibers/DNA to be in contact with some of her blood (or in a wound, etc.) and they're caught. There would be no other way it could have have gotten there UNLESS they touched the body after the crime. By washing/redressing her, they try to eliminate as much evidence as possible, but they can't have gotten everything. However, if they are the ones to “find” the body first though, they can claim any clothing fibers/DNA in her head wound/whatever came from picking her up, cradling her, etc.

“Now that's just plain silly. You're saying that every prosecutor in every murder case has to have been present at the murder to accuse the defendant of the crime? That the jury has to have been present to convict?”

I'm saying that without indisputable video footage, the prosecution can never really state with ABSOLUTE certainty that they know what happened. Eyewitnesses can lie/be mistaken. Evidence can be misinterpreted. Times/dates/etc. can be incorrect. The prosecution hopes that their theory is the right one, but in most cases, there's ALWAYS the chance that defendants are innocent and events did not occur the way the state claims they did. See every single innocent person ever pardoned/exonerated on DNA/found/disputed evidence. It happens far too often.

"It means avoiding the scandal/shame of having JBR's death/molestation be the result of someone directly in the family. It is avoided by staging a phony kidnapping. (eg. The kidnapper is the killer/sexual predator, not JR/PR/BR)"

But staging a phoney kidnapping works ONLY if the victim is no longer in the house. With the body of the victim in the house there was no kidnapping, so what was the point of the note? Handing that note over to the police under such circumstances means only that something went wrong, it is certainly not evidence that a kidnapper was present. The note would have worked ONLY if they'd been able to get the body out of the house first, before calling the police.

"It is my belief that it was NEVER meant to fully exonerate them from any wrong doing, but to inject some/any doubt and confusion into the case. Perhaps they realized that it wouldn't convince many people, but as long as it has the potential to raise doubts in some, it does its job."

But the doubts it raised were NOT the sort of doubts that could help them get away with it. The doubts it raised were doubts regarding the validity of their story.

"But they wouldn't have been in contact with her during/after the murder. All it takes is for their hairs/ clothing fibers/DNA to be in contact with some of her blood (or in a wound, etc.) and they're caught." No not at all. Since they'd been in close contact with her, their fibers and DNA could wind up anywhere on or around her body, even in her blood, via indirect transfer, why not? If they were collaborating to cover up this crime, there is no reason I can think of for them to want to hide that body. The most convincing thing would have been to display it in her bedroom.

“The ONLY thing linking Patsy to the note is based on opinion -- and there are opinions on both sides of the fence.”

Indeed there are. You believe she didn't write it, I believe she did. Your premise is based entirely on this subjective opinion -- that she is absolutely, 100% not the author -- and that is where it loses merit. This claim simply has not been proven the case, and thus she is not “cleared” of being a suspect or an accomplice after the fact. Trying to convict JR as the sole killer with that possibility floating around would be difficult to say the least.

“But many criminals have been convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. Often there is no other way to arrive at the truth.”

You mean often there is no other way to get a conviction. To the innocent individuals who have been imprisoned and on death row, but end up exonerated through programs like the Innocence Project, did the state arrive at the truth in their case? No. Whenever you speculate/infer/make leaps of logic there's the possibility that you are wrong. The direct evidence in the JBR case is weak. There are tons of things that a defense lawyer could point to and create reasonable doubt. I know you'd like to believe this is an open and shut case, but the reality is that the state would have an extremely difficulty time proving JR and JR alone was responsible for this.

"Indeed there are. You believe she didn't write it, I believe she did. Your premise is based entirely on this subjective opinion"

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It's not based on my subjective opinion, but on a considerable amount of research. If you start with this post (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-experts-see-patsy-part-1cina-wong.html) and continue to the next five or six you'll find my analyses of the reports offered by all Darnay Hoffman's "experts", and you'll learn about the very serious flaws in all these reports.

Also I've never claimed I could prove Patsy didn't write the note, because I don't believe handwriting evidence in itself is sufficient to either rule anyone in OR out. All I've done is demonstrate how different her writing style is from that of the note, and also how similar John's is, and I've pointed out the serious flaws in the work of the "experts" who managed to convince themselves she wrote it.

I recommend the following additional blog posts if you want to learn more about my take on the ransom note: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.htmlhttp://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-left-hand-sample-revisited.htmlhttp://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-london-letter-revisited.html

I think BR did it because we know he was disturbed enough to rub feces on his walls and put feces in JBR's candy box, and hit her with a golf club requiring stitches. The ransom note was written by PR as dictated by JR as a cover for BR's crime, because it was unspeakable for them to have to let it be known that their son did the crime, not for the reason that they didn't know he couldn't be prosecuted due to his age. PR called 911 sooner rather than later because they were naive enough to think that police would not search the entire house. They had no plan to dispose of the body, at least not right away. When JR was told to search the house, this was unexpected and he had no choice but to retrieve JBR from the cellar. The reason that the 'ransom note' stated the $118,000 figure is because they knew that it would make it look like someone who knew the family wrote the note, in fact the ransom note is made to look like someone who knows them is pretending to be a 'foreign faction' when it's clear by the note that they know the Ramseys.

"The reason that the 'ransom note' stated the $118,000 figure is because they knew that it would make it look like someone who knew the family wrote the note, in fact the ransom note is made to look like someone who knows them is pretending to be a 'foreign faction' when it's clear by the note that they know the Ramseys."

On this point I agree -- except for the word "they."

If you read the note carefully, you'll see that it's purpose was to give the writer the opportunity to get rid of the body before calling the police. Which would not have been difficult to do, if Patsy hadn't called them when she did. It seems obvious to me that her killer would have desperately wanted to get that body out of the house before involving the police.

If they "naively" believed the police wouldn't be searching the house, then what do you think they were planning to do with the body as it rotted away in the basement? Once the police are involved, then obviously their actions are going to be monitored, so there would be no way they could expect to remove that body without being caught in the act.

The way the body was sitting there with the blanket on top, it's as if it was put to rest right there. I don't think PR and JR had any intention or plan to move it, but (if not found by police first) when a smell could be detected from the cellar, one of them would notice it and call police, making them look all the more innocent. So again, the purpose of the ransom note was not to buy time for disposal of the body: it was to disassociate this crime from the family and the family name, as much as possible, which makes more sense when you realize that perhaps the parents knew about BR's molestations of JBR, molestations which would be called into question as to who really did them within the family.

If the Ramseys found the body in the house and presented it to police, then certainly they weren't conspiring to dispose of the body.

The RN was not 'obviously phoney' just because the body was found in the house. In the minds of the public it just means the kidnapper probably either wrote it as an afterthought, or he came there to abduct the child and something 'went wrong' or he 'snapped' and killed her, then decided to leave the note anyway to try to get the ransom. I don't remember those theories being said at the time in tabloids and newspapers but it would certainly occur to the Ramseys that these were possible. In the minds of the Ramseys the RN distances the attention and focus away from themselves and creates more doubt than it creates any connection to the Ramseys. The only thing that makes the RN truly phoney is that it was something like 86% proved to be the left hand writing of PR which the Ramseys did not expect. Finally, I'd like to mention that PR (and JR) had every motivation to call 911 right away because they wanted the events to start moving along, given that they were not going to hide the body further.

When all exterior doors are reported locked (as reported by John and confirmed by the police) and there is no sign of a breakin at the basement window (as reported by the police) or any other sign of forced entry (as reported by the police), and the police are handed a ransom note supposedly written by a kidnapper, and then the body of the victim is found hidden in the house, then I'm sorry but under those circumstances it certainly looks like the note is part of a plan to stage a phoney kidnapping, a plan that went wrong.

With no sign of an intruder, and obviously no attempt to remove the body from the house, then clearly there was no kidnapping. So why the note? The police wanted to interrogate the Ramseys separately as soon as possible to get some answers to such questions, but were stonewalled for months. Why weren't they willing to cooperate?

If what you are claiming makes any sense at all, then you are presenting an argument for an intruder, not an argument for a conspiracy on the part of the Ramseys.

And why would the Ramseys want to stage such an unlikely and confusing scenario, when they could have gotten rid of the body first and then called the police, using the note as an excuse not to call earlier?

"The only thing that makes the RN truly phoney is that it was something like 86% proved to be the left hand writing of PR which the Ramseys did not expect."

The fact that John was ruled out, and the intruder theory was so absurd, forced all eyes on Patsy, and as a result there was a rush to find reasons to suspect her of writing the note. As I've demonstrated on many places in this blog, there is NO reason to suspect her of writing it and many good reasons to believe she could not have written it. As for her left handed sample, it looks nothing like the ransom note, and if you doubt me, I invite you to look for yourself: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-left-hand-sample-revisited.html

We also have to consider the logic of the case. If Patsy wrote the note, why on Earth would she have wanted to call the police before getting rid of the body? And why would she have wanted to hand the police that note if it were so obviously written by her?

If Patsy didn't write it and there was no intruder, then that leaves only one other possibility . . .

"Finally, I'd like to mention that PR (and JR) had every motivation to call 911 right away because they wanted the events to start moving along, given that they were not going to hide the body further."

I'm sorry, but the above statement makes no sense to me. Why would they have wanted events "to start moving along?" And why would they have wanted to hide the body in the first place, knowing full well it would eventually be found? Looks to me like John hid the body because he didn't want Patsy to find it. And he filled the note with dire threats hoping she'd be afraid to call the police. If all had gone according to plan, he could have convinced Patsy to take Burke and go to stay with friends while he dealt with the "kidnappers," who, after all, had addressed the note to him and expected him to provide them with the ransom.

That's because it directly conflicts with your theory. JR and PR were not going to dispose of their daughter's body because this is not something rich, classy people do, plus that opens up a whole new can of worms and puts them at risk for being caught. They wanted the police to arrive and discover the body, and then start searching for the kidnapper who botched his kidnapping and murdered instead. Once you get it through your head that this was what actually happened, the pieces fall into place. The purpose of the ransom note was to interject a diversion, and keep the focus off the Ramseys. I believe Burke "accidentally" swung a golf club at JBR (probably the club found outside the house with hair tangled in it), and the parents tried to make him believe she was ok, and they set about to cover for him so that he wouldn't realize what he'd done. These kids were spoiled and bratty, as attested to by the housekeeper. They were not disciplined. They were not loved properly by their parental units. All of this added up to Burke essentially being a Little Chucky, complete with a golf club in one hand and a handful of poop in the other.

The above comment is embarrassingly naive. First of all, the kidnapping note would have worked for them only if she'd been actually kidnapped. With no kidnapping there was no need for such a note and the note makes them look suspicious to boot.

I've never heard of any hair found on any golf club, but if you're implying that this could have been JonBenet's hair, then wow! Sorry, but I just don't know what to say. It would obviously have been tested, no?

Also, a golf club would have lacerated her scalp and there was no such wound.

Maybe, but the truth is often stranger than fiction, and the truth can be embarrassing. There was hair found on the club found outside on the West side of the house, and I can't find the results of the test on that hair. It would be nice to know. A black metal baseball bat -- which Burke said was not his -- was found outside on the North side of the house by the butler pantry, but I don't feel the bat is the likely weapon, though it is possible. See this link for more info:

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-evidence.htm

Per my comment above, I believe the golf club fits the wounds that were seen "to a tee" (pardon the pun), though I am no medical expert.

To my knowledge, the consensus among the investigators, after consulting with the medical experts, was that she was most likely struck with the maglite. Which, by the way, was thoroughly wiped of prints, both inside and out.

" The consensus among the investigators, after consulting with the medical experts, was that she was most likely struck with the maglite."

Indeed, Dr. Werner Spitz did experiments on a child cadaver and determined it could have been a flashlight, but that it could also be other things. A close look at the injury pattern suggests that the golf club is a better fit and the more likely weapon. But as you always do, since it is less likely for John to be running around the house with a golf club as opposed to a Maglite, you'll argue for the Maglite. You're the "teflon investigator": whatever doesn't fit the theory that John did it, bounces right off. That's not investigation, that's obstinence.

I see no point in arguing over the golf club, since this issue, like so many other details of this case, can be, and has been, argued over ad infinitum. I'm not here to participate in such arguments which go round in circles endlessly. My case is based on the known facts, not what might or might not have happened.

That said, I'll concede that we in fact do not have any direct evidence that Burke could not have killed his sister, either with the maglite or a golf club or whatever. As I said in an earlier post: "Strictly speaking, we have no way of knowing. There is no direct evidence linking either John or Burke to the physical assault on JonBenet."

The most pressing question, for me, is who wrote the ransom note. And obviously it was not written by a nine year old. As I see it, based on the known facts of the case, it could only have been written by John. And Patsy could not have known anything about it when she called 911.

Imo it is extremely unlikely that Burke was involved in a sexual relationship with his 6 year old sister and it's extremely unlikely that his father would go to such great lengths and take such a huge personal risk to stage an elaborate kidnapping scenario to protect him. But strictly speaking, there is no way to prove that with 100% certainty. Which is why my position has always been that John, as the most likely perpetrator, should be put on trial, during which time he will have an opportunity to claim that he was only protecting his beloved son, if that was actually the case. I doubt he'd be able to convince a jury, but that's another matter.

It's quite clear who wrote the ransom note: it was Patsy. Any working set of eyes (that doesn't have an agenda or isn't being paid off to say otherwise) can see that. You mock the experts' analyses and the experts themselves, yet you apparently have no such credentials.

First of all, Burke was one month away from age 10. I think we can call him 10. A 'sexual relationship' for a 10 year old would not be like for an adult. He'd likely want to strip his sister of her clothes, and go poking around here and there. We are not talking fellatio or penetration. He would have inserted toys and objects like a paintbrush handle into her vagina. I have a friend who works in a youth detention facility that is full of 10 year old sex offenders that have done way worse, including rape. What are your credentials that you can say Burke would not be doing sexual acts with his sister?

It's nice that it seems you've acknowledged that there is a 1% chance that Burke was the killer (I will assume here that this would be your estimate, or less), but if you look at the known facts in the case and look at it in its entirety, a better estimate would be more like 85% chance. You'll never concede to that, and I see you holding onto your guns until your last breath, still reiterating the same old 2 lines that Patsy made the 911 call so she couldn't have written the ransom note, and that John must be the killer because the ransom note would be detrimental if there was a body in the house. Yada yada yada.

John and Patsy would, and did, take personal risks to protect their only remaining son. I don't think they should have, but they did. They got caught in a web of lies from which there was no turning back.

If you've read Kolar's book instead of using it for toilet paper, then it's doubtful you'll ever come around to the truth of that night in December of 1996. John Ramsey may be 'guilty', but not of the crime you claim, unless he finished a mortally wounded JonBenet off, and it seems unlikely he would have known she was still alive, so he (or Patsy, or both) figured they were staging, not taking her last breath from her. That could be manslaughter, but Murder 1, no.

There is no evidence linking Burke to this crime. There is no reason to assume his parents would have gone to such extravagant lengths to cover for him if he had in fact killed his sister. Kolar presented his thoughts on Burke to the rest of the investigation team and got nowhere. All Kolar demonstrated was that it was possible for a 9 year old to sexually molest a 6 year old. He treats that possibility as though it were proof positive and so do you. I'm sorry, but a possibility is NOT proof, NOT evidence, not much of anything except idle speculation. Sorry.

I say there is, and more than any of the other people in that house. Some of this might be conjecture, but it's all there, read it and weep.Please don't bother going through these one by one and refuting them, there's no point. Not every item is hard evidence. But when taken in its entirety, volumes are spoken.

1) Burke had a violent pattern in him and he previously hit his sisterwith a golf club requiring stitches to her face.2) Burke was angry and jealous at his sister for stealing all the attention.3) Burke was seen "playing doctor" with his sister on previous ocassions.4) At the White's Christmas party, some of the children were seen playing doctor.5) Burke's red swiss army pocket knife was found in the wine cellar along with the body, but he denied owning it even though the housekeeper said it was his. 6) Burke is said to be heard on the tail end of the 911 call, though the parents denied he was up (this suggests coverup)7) Burke had deep psychological problems and probably sexual behavior problems8) Burke was in the house the night of the murder. He is one of three main suspects.9) Burke was shielded by his parents from the getgo which is suspicious of a coverup involving Burke.10) Burke had the most access to JonBenet of anybody, to sexually molest her or beat her up.11) Burke pretended to be asleep when officers first arrived at the house (suspicious behavior)12) Burke claimed not to be the owner of the black metal bat found outside the home (suspicious, as who else would own it?)13) Bat outside the home was in an unusual place, according to Patsy's interview14) Burke's fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl on the kitchen table, though not the spoon. This is evidence he may have served JB her favorite snack, luring her into a trap.15) Semen that could be Burke's was found in JB's bedroom on the carpet, but I cannot find any DNA result (police probably covering for Burke)16) Hair found in a golf club laying outside the house could be JB's (not sure if it was tested to be JB's). Could have been the club that Burke used.17) Burke had put his feces in JB's candy box in her room, thus showing deep anger toward her. 18) Burke once asked him Mom "do you think I am fat?", which was a way of asking her why he was not being loved at JB was.19) Burke's friends could have come over that night, namely a friend named Doug who lived close by. Bicycle tire tracks were noted in the dirt as being out of the ordinary.20) To this day Burke has not spoken up and publicly talked about finding the killer, which is very suspicious. He has hidden under the protection of lawyers just like his parents did.

You'll be hard pressed to draw up an equally impressive list for evidence against John. Very hard pressed. The list of evidence you presented was equally valid for Patsy, so it doesn't single John out. You are mainly focused on the ransom note which you claim "must" be written by John, because Patsy called 911, which is a very flawed claim. In comparison, my list is very damning compared to a single piece of evidence from which you draw a dubious conclusion.

That's your business to respond or not, but I would argue that you have shown yourself to be unable to paint a picture of a crime scene. You are too focused on hard evidence, to a flaw. Yes, hard evidence is paramount, but the totality of the situation consists of many, many other things, substantiated or not. It is enough to paint a picture on a canvas, and, sure, some of the paint dots might not belong there, but in the end you have an overall painting. This is not something you do, you focus on only the most hard evidence, and then try to draw very dubious conclusions from it. Your whole case against John, for instance, rests with that ransom note and the body in the cellar when the 911 call is made by Patsy. Heck with anything else, such as the handwriting on the ransom note clearly being Patsy's -- you'll dismiss it or create esoteric argument to work around it.

Now of course, the "picture" that I speak of being painted, may or may not be enough to convict. That is up to jurors and the judge. It has already been shown that the evidence in the case was not enough to make a conviction on anybody, so there's no sense in having a blog about how there was evidence enough for them to convict. It makes more sense to talk about who looks to be the killer given the overall evidence, and information substantiated or not. When you do that, everything points to Burke. When you only take the hard evidence, then it points to any one of the three in the house (really about equally), or a possible intruder because recall there was foreign DNA on the body . This is information we already know.

What I have done is paint a picture that shows that Burke probably did this crime, regardless of whether it can or cannot be proven at a future time. You, however, are trying to do a very difficult thing in using only hard evidence to determine the killer, when in fact the investigators, police, experts, etc., could not even do that. I really don't see the point, because if your theory had any merit, it would have been considered and then used to prosecute John Ramsey. It wasn't.

I HAVE considered the totality of the evidence. And I've opened this blog to comments by others like yourself, so they can raise issues not covered in my own posts. But you don't seem to need evidence. For you the possibility that Burke might have done this or that or thought this or that is enough to nail him as a killer. Even the presence of a baseball bat outside the house is evidence of Burke's guilt as far as you're concerned. Sorry, I refuse to buy that. And your notion that Burke's sperm was found in JonBenet's bedroom is also not evidence, because Burke's sperm was obviously NOT found in her bedroom or anywhere else. If it had, that would have been headline news. He was probably too young to even produce sperm. Get a grip, man!

The ONLY reason my theory was never considered was that the investigation team bought into the decision to rule John out, which was never questioned. A major point of this blog is that this decision was not only a mistake, but also completely unwarranted by any known forensic science.

What about the DNA, which we are told eliminated the Ramsey's as suspects? I have wondered if another person was involved, or possible another person just helped the little girl go to the restroom? Please tell me what you think of the DNA. Thank you.

The DNA "evidence" is yet another red herring. It was most likely transferred indirectly from an innocent source, and there is no way to prove otherwise.

If she'd been attacked by an intruder not wearing gloves, that person's DNA would have been all over her and all over her clothing -- but nothing more than a few traces was ever found. If her attacker was wearing gloves then there would have been no "touch DNA" at all. For my analysis of the DNA evidence, seehttp://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-magical-dna.html and the following post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-touch-dna.html

DocG: You are using a sweeping sort of Playskool logic. Now you've only got to explain why the child molesting John Ramsey decided to club his daughter over the head after a session of asphyxiation sex games, because it certainly does not make sense to stage a garrote scene if he planned to dispose of the body. So you have to buy into both of these:

1. JR was into asphyxiation sex games with JBR (at least that night);2. He clubbed her over the head when she went unconscious instead of trying to save her life.

Vern, you make all sorts of assumptions regarding John, Patsy, Burke and also me. Stop making assumptions and deal with the evidence, please. And also, if the case means that much to you (as implied by all your comments), then please do yourself the favor of reading carefully through this blog. If you do you'll see that my theory has nothing to do with the assumptions you've been making.

One of the things that keeps coming into my mind is that spiral staircase. I just can't get it out of my mind. What if JB was pushed down those stairs, and her head impacted one of the metal bars that support the stair handle? Any family member could have pushed her. I found that there were no marks on her that would indicate a fall, and that medical examiners can see signs of a fall on the body such as scrapes and bruises, which she didn't have. Related to this point is that ligature on her neck, which people have suggested could mean the killer thought her neck was broken and had no idea it was her skull that was fractured instead. One of the parents could have pushed her down the spiral stairs, and figuring she broke her neck and is near death, they finish the job by strangling her with the rope, and they stage the ligature to make it look like a sex crime that broke her neck. If the brother was the one who pushed her down, the parents might cover for him.

Another thing that bothers me is that housekeeper, Linda Pugh. She reportedly lied about a lot of things, and she even once said to Patsy "aren't you afraid she'll be kindnapped?". She had keys to the house and though she was off duty that day, if she was seen in the house she would have had a cover. The rumor was that she had her husband and his friends plan the kidnapping because they needed the money. Linda asked for a loan of $2000 on the 23rd I think, which Patsy said she would give her on the 27th. The rumor was that she was going to try to call off the kidnapping and pay the kidnappers $2000 to call them off, but the kidnappers went through with it anyway. She was horrified to find that it got botched and one of them killed JB.

As far as the theory that John Ramsey killed JB, Wecht's book suggests it was him and that he was sexually abusing her and it was a "sex game gone wrong". Maybe he was in her room and she dashed out and fell down the spiral stairs. It seems like JB had been to the doctor many times and the doctor did not notice sexual abuse on her, so I don't know why John would be worried that it would come out that he was abusing her, and then make the bold move to kill her to protect himself.

So you're saying they decided to finish her off by strangling her with a garotte? And then penetrated her vagina to make it look like a sexual attack? And then wrote a note to make it look like a kidnapping?

Funny those elaborate knots....wasn't john a sailor in the Navy. Garrotte looking device similar to a medieval torturing device device points toward an educated adult familiar with history. "adequate" "attache`" words attribute to an privilidge educated person born before late 70's....Seriously what scumbag foreigner use the word "attache`"? sounds like vocabulary from a hushpuppie wearing dignitary. The ransom is indented for the paragraphs... how thoughtful they didnt forget what they learned in english1 in college.

Bottom line is that Burke is the most likely killer. The most likely weapon is a golf club. There were two golf club sets at the house, and John got a new set for Christmas. Burke had problems not feeling loved and he beat his sister and probably molested her along with some friends of his. He had the most access to his sister. He even previously hit her with a golf club.

When Mom and Dad found out about the wallop to the head, they decided to cover for Burke and make him think he didn't mortally wound her. The only way to do that was to stage a botched kidnapping. Dad prepared the garrote from materials found in the house and Mom helped. One of them pulled the string tight until she was not breathing at all. Mom wrote the fake ransom note while Dad orated.

They never thought this thing would garner worldwide attention. They just wanted a normal life for their son who was their only child remaining. They didn't want a vegetable for a daughter and Mom didn't want a damaged pageant princess. And since their daughter was dead, they wanted a proper burial for her, just as the ransom note mentions.

It is much more plausible than your theory. Your theory posits that a faithful Dad gets up in the middle of the night on Christmas and murders his daughter because he thinks she's going to rat him out for sex abuse. And he's the one because he must have written the ransom note based on the false premise that Patsy couldn't have because she dialed 911. Utter fodder.

" The premise is that Patsy was not such an idiot that she'd call the police on herself after staging a phoney kidnapping, and hand them evidence against her."

The problem is, you can't have her not be an idiot when it suits you, and be a total idiot when it does suit you. You would have this woman be smart enough to know not to hand a ransom note over to police in her handwriting, yet you'd have this same woman have no clue as to her husband's chronic molestation of her daughter, and no idea that he's visiting her in her room, and no idea he's killed her while she supposedly slept (in the same clothes from the day before - yeah right). I'd say she's a blithering idiot in your theory, except for when she'd be smart enough not to call 911 if she was in on the staging.

I'm really buying into the "JR did it" arguments. The guy obviously had a thing for young beauty queens and there's an apparent history of sexual molestation with JB. Not a giant leap of logic. It's not implausible that he got up for some sick-o "Christmas nookie" with his daughter and was rejected. Neither is it implausible that when she rejected him she said "I'm going to tell mom". How does an adult male answer that charge against him from his own daughter? She's lying?? He's nailed and his life destroyed. His instinct of self preservation was probably blunt force trauma to the back of her head the second she turned her back to walk away. It also makes sense that he probably wanted to dispose of the body but ran out of time. If he drives off in the middle of the night that's pretty obvious. And he had to know that evidence of past sexual abuse would be discovered in an autopsy. I don't think he really wanted anyone to find her. That's evidence, and murderers don't like leaving evidence behind. Patsy was probably just gullible and didn't want to face reality. She'd probably had suspicions for a while, as most mothers would. Burke..meh..he's obviously mostly worried about self preservation. Chip off the old block.

Yeah, I think it was something like that. What exactly happened that night we'll probably never know, whether it was a spontaneous decision or something he'd been planning. It's also not clear how long the abuse had been going on. I hate the thought that a father could do this to his child, and I wish I could find some -- any -- evidence pointing in some other direction -- but I can't.

Wow, very interesting points by all. I believe both parents were involved in at least the cover up. Getting the police involved and staging a kidnapping was probably a smart thing to do. If she's dead, regardless of who killed her, it is too risky to leave and hide the body. Why risk having a neighbor watch your car leave. And then where the hell are you going to hide the body? The ground is frozen, there's snow on the ground, you can't leave her anywhere without leaving footprints. I live in Boulder and there's really not a good place to hide a body without driving really far away. And if they did drive really far away they would have been noticed.

Leaving the body hidden in the basement and then "finding" it later is the perfect plan. I don't believe JR ever planned on not calling the cops because he never planned on hiding the body. I think both PR and JR were involved because they've been together on their story pretty much this whole time. If one parent was truly oblivious, with all this hard evidence, they probably would have started to blame the other.

Also, I could be completely wrong, but didn't investigators find patsy's handwriting very similar to the note? I remember reading it somewhere but I couldn't tell you the source.

Leaving the body in the basement is NOT staging a kidnapping. It is staging a staged kidnapping. Which is why the police were focusing on the Ramseys from day one, since the staging was so obvious. So, why on Earth would the Ramseys want to make it look like they were staging, why not make it look like a real kidnapping? And why would Patsy want to call the police and hand over a note printed in her own hand? A note that would be revealed as phoney just as soon as the body was found. So sorry, I can't agree that both parents were involved. Read my post again. And then read some more on this blog and you'll see very clearly why I think the way I do.

I think Patsy was in fact pretty much oblivious, because as far as she knew John was what he presented himself to be. John's first wife probably felt the same way, until finally, after a few years of marriage she discovered he'd been cheating on her for some time.

And no, the investigators hired by the authorities determined that it was "unlikely" Patsy wrote the note. It was other investigators, hired by a lawyer determined to "prove" Patsy wrote the note who came to that conclusion. I've critiqued their findings in a series of posts titled "The Experts See Patsy." Do a search on that phrase and you'll learn a lot about their incompetence and bias. Patsy's hand looks nothing like the note.

Why only Kolar? Just about everyone who rejects the intruder theory feels sure Patsy wrote that note. What can I say? They are wrong. I believe I've demonstrated that pretty conclusively on this blog, if you care to look.

That's an interesting question. I just take the comments as they come without trying to second guess who might have written them. I'd like to think I'd be able to recognize John's "voice" if he ever commented here, but my guess is that he wouldn't. I'd be very surprised if he were following any of the online discussions of the case, as I think it would be too disturbing.

Yes, I agree with you Doc. Even though I believe JR is the most likely suspect of molesting his daughter (that night and previously), I don't believe he ever planned on killing her. I believe he probably struck her in the head during a fit of rage, perhaps because of something she said or perhaps because she was fighting back, or both. So the murder itself is something he has forced himself to forget. He may even have remorse about it. Reading or posting on this blog would certainly open up that "wound" wide open for him.

However, as I've said before in my comments, I truly believe someday, someone will say something that might give us the final clues we need to solve this case. Burke comes to mind. So does John's new wife. Burke may actually know something about that night and the following morning. And his new wife may discover something that links John to this murder. She may find something or notice something suspicious about something he says or does. Unfortunately, I don't think either Burke or the new wife would say anything until after John dies.

I've said this many times: there is no evidence whatsoever implicating Burke in either the murder or the coverup. Nor is there any reason to assume that either Patsy or John would be so foolish as to risk the electric chair to cover for a son who had just murdered their daughter. If you found your daughter's dead body, then regardless of what you think might have caused her death, you are going to call 911. You are NOT going to devise a "garotte" to finish her off, you are NOT going to penetrate her vagina, you are NOT going to sit down and write a 2 1/2 page "ransom" note. That sort of thinking is patently absurd, sorry.

I don't think he'll ever confess. As you have pointed out, he is a "master manipulator" who did everything to make himself look completely innocent, even if that meant all suspecting eyes shifted to his wife or son. He strikes me as a very selfish, arrogant man who only wanted to protect himself ---- at any cost. He'll never admit it.

You know, committing a terrible crime of that nature, I would think it would set off some inner demons that would grow only more and more tormenting as time wore on. Even if John managed to hypnotize himself into believing that he was simply an innocent victim, then those demons would continue to torment him subconsciously. At a certain point, I'd think confessing and accepting his sentence would come as a huge relief.

I've been watching some interviews with both parents and John gives himself away alot with the way he answers questions. Even in her drugged state, Patsy was composed and convincing. The fact that he can write with his left and right hand, in essence, really saved his ass.

Well, he claims he's right handed and says nothing about being ambidextrous. But the legal document we've all seen has backslant, which makes it look like it was written with the left hand. I'm wondering whether the examples John provided to the investigators are also backslanted.

As far as his interviews are concerned, I try not to read anything into his manner, because it's too easy to see what one wants to see when trying to "read" behavioral clues.

Doc, I read an analysis by somebody about the use of the word "hence" in the ransom note and how it didnt fit in a ransom note. The word hence was used in a prayer message from the Ramsey family and John Ramsey also said the word "hence" in an interview. Is this just coincidence or is it a mistake by the killer...John Ramsey?

New and Improved!

Currently available from the Kindle Store

Search This Blog

Things to Come

Things to Come

I just learned the other day of a new book on a case once labeled, "the crime of the century," but now almost completely forgotten. The title: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? The author: James Kolar, a lead investigator during the reign of DA Mary Lacy, who famously exonerated John and Patsy Ramsey on the basis of a few miniscule fragments of so-called "intruder DNA." Thankfully, Kolar is not among those convinced by that very dubious "evidence." On the contrary, according to an excellent review,New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder, recently published in the Daily Beast, Kolar's book presents strong evidence against the intruder theory -- implying, of course, that the murder was an inside job. I agree.

The publication of this new book, which I promptly ordered as soon as I found out about it, has prompted me, in spite of many misgivings, to once again plunge into the fray of this case, which for too many years, back in the late 90's and early 00's, as a regular poster on several Internet forums, occupied far too much of my attention and proved an endless source of frustration and annoyance, not only to me, but most of my fellow iSleuths. My problem was that I had solved it.